Efficacy of positive end-expiratory pressure titration after the alveolar recruitment manoeuvre in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Brazilian recommendations of mechanical ventilation 2013. Part I

Perspectives on invasive and noninvasive ventilatory support for critically ill patients are evolving, as much evidence indicates that ventilation may have positive effects on patient survival and the quality of the care provided in intensive care units in Brazil. For those reasons, the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB) and the Brazilian Thoracic Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumonia e Tisiologia - SBPT), represented by the Mechanical Ventilation Committee and the Commission of Intensive Therapy, respectively, decided to review the literature and draft recommendations for mechanical ventilation with the goal of creating a document for bedside guidance as to the best practices on mechanical ventilation available to their members. The document was based on the available evidence regarding 29 subtopics selected as the most relevant for the subject of interest. The project was developed in several stages, during which the selected topics were distributed among experts recommended by both societies with recent publications on the subject of interest and/or significant teaching and research activity in the field of mechanical ventilation in Brazil. The experts were divided into pairs that were charged with performing a thorough review of the international literature on each topic. All the experts met at the Forum on Mechanical Ventilation, which was held at the headquarters of AMIB in São Paulo on August 3 and 4, 2013, to collaboratively draft the final text corresponding to each sub-topic, which was presented to, appraised, discussed and approved in a plenary session that included all 58 participants and aimed to create the final document.

Brazilian recommendations of mechanical ventilation 2013. Part I

Perspectives on invasive and noninvasive ventilatory support for critically ill patients are evolving, as much evidence indicates that ventilation may have positive effects on patient survival and the quality of the care provided in intensive care units in Brazil. For those reasons, the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB) and the Brazilian Thoracic Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT), represented by the Mechanical Ventilation Committee and the Commission of Intensive Therapy, respectively, decided to review the literature and draft recommendations for mechanical ventilation with the goal of creating a document for bedside guidance as to the best practices on mechanical ventilation available to their members. The document was based on the available evidence regarding 29 subtopics selected as the most relevant for the subject of interest. The project was developed in several stages, during which the selected topics were distributed among experts recommended by both societies with recent publications on the subject of interest and/or significant teaching and research activity in the field of mechanical ventilation in Brazil. The experts were divided into pairs that were charged with performing a thorough review of the international literature on each topic. All the experts met at the Forum on Mechanical Ventilation, which was held at the headquarters of AMIB in São Paulo on August 3 and 4, 2013, to collaboratively draft the final text corresponding to each sub-topic, which was presented to, appraised, discussed and approved in a plenary session that included all 58 participants and aimed to create the final document.

Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled ventilation for acute respiratory failure due to acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)

BACKGROUND

Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) account for one-quarter of cases of acute respiratory failure in intensive care units (ICUs). A third to half of patients will die in the ICU, in hospital or during follow-up. Mechanical ventilation of people with ALI/ARDS allows time for the lungs to heal, but ventilation is invasive and can result in lung injury. It is uncertain whether ventilator-related injury would be reduced if pressure delivered by the ventilator with each breath is controlled, or whether the volume of air delivered by each breath is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) versus volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in adults with ALI/ARDS to determine whether PCV reduces in-hospital mortality and morbidity in intubated and ventilated adults.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2014, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Isssue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to 1 October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 1 October 2014), the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1994 to 1 October 2014) and Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) at the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1990 to 1 October 2014), as well as regional databases, clinical trials registries, conference proceedings and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (irrespective of language or publication status) of adults with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure or acute on chronic respiratory failure and fulfilling the criteria for ALI/ARDS as defined by the American-European Consensus Conference who were admitted to an ICU for invasive mechanical ventilation, comparing pressure-controlled or pressure-controlled inverse-ratio ventilation, or an equivalent pressure-controlled mode (PCV), versus volume-controlled ventilation, or an equivalent volume-controlled mode (VCV).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We sought clarification from trial authors when needed. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs that randomly assigned a total of 1089 participants recruited from 43 ICUs in Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Spain and the USA. Risk of bias of the included studies was low. Only data for mortality and barotrauma could be combined in the meta-analysis. We downgraded the quality of evidence for the three mortality outcomes on the basis of serious imprecision around the effect estimates. For mortality in hospital, the RR with PCV compared with VCV was 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; three trials, 1089 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and for mortality in the ICU, the RR with PCV compared with VCV was 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; two trials, 1062 participants; moderate-quality evidence). One study provided no evidence of clear benefit with the ventilatory mode for mortality at 28 days (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 983 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The difference in effect on barotrauma between PCV and VCV was uncertain as the result of imprecision and different co-interventions used in the studies (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.77; two trials, 1062 participants; low-quality evidence). Data from one trial with 983 participants for the mean duration of ventilation, and from another trial with 78 participants for the mean number of extrapulmonary organ failures that developed with PCV or VCV, were skewed. None of the trials reported on infection during ventilation or quality of life after discharge.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently available data from RCTs are insufficient to confirm or refute whether pressure-controlled or volume-controlled ventilation offers any advantage for people with acute respiratory failure due to acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. More studies including a larger number of people given PCV and VCV may provide reliable evidence on which more firm conclusions can be based.

Tidal volume and plateau pressure use for acute lung injury from 2000 to present: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

Since publication of the Respiratory Management of Acute Lung Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARMA) trial in 2000, use of tidal volume (VT) less than or equal to 6 mL/kg predicted body weight with corresponding plateau airway pressures (PPlat) less than or equal to 30 cm H2O has been advocated for acute lung injury. However, compliance with these recommendations is unknown. We therefore investigated VT (mL/kg predicted body weight) and PPlat (cm H2O) practices reported in studies of acute lung injury since ARMA using a systematic literature review (i.e., not a meta-analysis).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies enrolling patients with acute lung injury from May 2000 to June 2013 and reporting VT.

DATA EXTRACTION

Whether the study was a randomized controlled trial or a nonrandomized study and performed or not at an Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network center; in randomized controlled trials, the pre- and postrandomization VT (mL/kg predicted body weight) and PPlat (cm H2O) and whether a VT protocol was used postrandomization; in nonrandomized studies, baseline VT and PPlat.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-two randomized controlled trials and 71 nonrandomized studies were included. Since 2000 at acute respiratory distress syndrome Network centers, routine VT was similar comparing randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies (p = 0.25) and unchanged over time (p = 0.75) with a mean value of 6.81 (95% CI, 6.45, 7.18). At non-acute respiratory distress syndrome Network centers, routine VT was also similar when comparing randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies (p = 0.71), but decreased (p = 0.001); the most recent estimate for it was 6.77 (6.22, 7.32). All VT estimates were significantly greater than 6 (p ≤ 0.02). In randomized controlled trials employing VT protocols, routine VT was reduced in both acute respiratory distress syndrome Network (n = 4) and non-acute respiratory distress syndrome Network (n = 11) trials (p ≤ 0.01 for both), but even postrandomization was greater than 6 (6.47 [6.29, 6.65] and 6.80 [6.42, 7.17], respectively; p ≤ 0.0001 for both). In 59 studies providing data, routine PPlat, averaged across acute respiratory distress syndrome Network or non-acute respiratory distress syndrome Network centers, was significantly less than 30 (p ≤ 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

For clinicians treating acute lung injury since 2000, achieving VT less than or equal to 6 mL/kg predicted body weight may not have been as attainable or important as PPlat less than or equal to 30 cm H2O. If so, there may be equipoise to test if VT less than or equal to 6 mL/kg predicted body weight are necessary to improve acute lung injury outcome.

The effect of postoperative positive end-expiratory pressure on postoperative bleeding after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

INTRODUCTION

To compare postoperative prophylactic use of two positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels in order to prevent postoperative bleeding in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty patients undergoing an elective off-pump CABG operation were included in this prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial. Patients were divided into two groups as receiving either 5 cm H2O (group 1) or 8 cm H2O PEEP (group 2) after the operation until being extubated. Chest tube outputs, use of blood products and other fluids, postoperative hemoglobin levels, accumulation of pleural and pericardial fluid after the removal of chest tubes, and duration of hospital stay were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

Low- and high-pressure PEEP groups did not differ with regard to postoperative chest tube outputs, amounts of transfusions and crystalloid/colloid infusion requirements, or postoperative hemoglobin levels. However, low-pressure PEEP application was associated with significantly higher pleural (92 ±37 ml vs. 69 ±29 ml, p = 0.03) and pericardial fluid (17 ±5 ml vs. 14 ±6 ml, p = 0.04) accumulation. On the other hand, high-pressure PEEP application was associated with significantly longer duration of hospitalization (6.25 ±1.21 days vs. 5.25 ±0.91 days, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic administration of postoperative PEEP levels of 8 cm H2O, although safe, does not seem to reduce chest-tube output or transfusion requirements in off-pump CABG when compared to the lower level of PEEP. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to confirm the benefits and identify ideal levels of PEEP administration in this group of patients.

Effects of alveolar recruitment maneuvers on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the effects of alveolar recruitment maneuvers (ARMs) on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

METHODS

We conducted a search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science (from inception to July 2014) databases for all (i.e. no language restriction) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of ARMs versus no ARMs in adults with ARDS. Four teams of two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the studies identified during the search and appraised the risk of bias and extracted data from those which were assessed as meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to establish monitoring boundaries to limit global type I error due to repetitive testing for our primary outcome (in-hospital mortality). The GRADE system was used to rate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Our database search identified ten RCTs (1,594 patients, 612 events) which satisfied the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis assessing the effect of ARMs on in-hospital mortality showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.84 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.95; I(2) = 0 %], although the quality of evidence was considered to be low due to the risk of bias in the included trials and the indirectness of the evidence--that is, ARMs were usually conducted together with other ventilatory interventions which may affect the outcome of interest. There were no differences in the rates of barotrauma (RR 1.11; 95 % CI 0.78-1.57; I(2) = 0 %) or need for rescue therapies (RR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.41-1.40; I(2) = 56 %). Most trials found no difference between groups in terms of duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. The TSA showed that the available evidence for the effect of ARMs on in-hospital mortality is precise in the case of a type I error of 5 %, but it is not precise with a type I error of 1 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ARMs may decrease the mortality of patients with ARDS without increasing the risk for major adverse events, current evidence is not definitive. Large-scale ongoing trials addressing this question may provide data better applicable to clinical practice.

Effects of interventions on survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome: an umbrella review of 159 published randomized trials and 29 meta-analyses

PURPOSE

Multiple interventions have been tested in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined the entire agenda of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in ARDS that reported on mortality and of respective meta-analyses.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge until July 2013. We included RCTs in ARDS published in English. We excluded trials of newborns and children; and those on short-term interventions, ARDS prevention, or post-traumatic lung injury. We also reviewed all meta-analyses of RCTs in this field that addressed mortality. Treatment modalities were grouped in five categories: mechanical ventilation strategies and respiratory care, enteral or parenteral therapies, inhaled/intratracheal medications, nutritional support, and hemodynamic monitoring.

RESULTS

We identified 159 published RCTs of which 93 had overall mortality reported (n = 20,671 patients)--44 trials (14,426 patients) reported mortality as a primary outcome. A statistically significant survival benefit was observed in eight trials (seven interventions) and two trials reported an adverse effect on survival. Among RCTs with more than 50 deaths in at least one treatment arm (n = 21), two showed a statistically significant mortality benefit of the intervention (lower tidal volumes and prone positioning), one showed a statistically significant mortality benefit only in adjusted analyses (cisatracurium), and one (high-frequency oscillatory ventilation) showed a significant detrimental effect. Across 29 meta-analyses, the most consistent evidence was seen for low tidal volumes and prone positioning in severe ARDS.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited supportive evidence that specific interventions can decrease mortality in ARDS. While low tidal volumes and prone positioning in severe ARDS seem effective, most sporadic findings of interventions suggesting reduced mortality are not corroborated consistently in large-scale evidence including meta-analyses.

Visualisation of time-varying respiratory system elastance in experimental ARDS animal models

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) risk lung collapse, severely altering the breath-to-breath respiratory mechanics. Model-based estimation of respiratory mechanics characterising patient-specific condition and response to treatment may be used to guide mechanical ventilation (MV). This study presents a model-based approach to monitor time-varying patient-ventilator interaction to guide positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection.

METHODS

The single compartment lung model was extended to monitor dynamic time-varying respiratory system elastance, Edrs, within each breathing cycle. Two separate animal models were considered, each consisting of three fully sedated pure pietrain piglets (oleic acid ARDS and lavage ARDS). A staircase recruitment manoeuvre was performed on all six subjects after ARDS was induced. The Edrs was mapped across each breathing cycle for each subject.

RESULTS

Six time-varying, breath-specific Edrs maps were generated, one for each subject. Each Edrs map shows the subject-specific response to mechanical ventilation (MV), indicating the need for a model-based approach to guide MV. This method of visualisation provides high resolution insight into the time-varying respiratory mechanics to aid clinical decision making. Using the Edrs maps, minimal time-varying elastance was identified, which can be used to select optimal PEEP.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time continuous monitoring of in-breath mechanics provides further insight into lung physiology. Therefore, there is potential for this new monitoring method to aid clinicians in guiding MV treatment. These are the first such maps generated and they thus show unique results in high resolution. The model is limited to a constant respiratory resistance throughout inspiration which may not be valid in some cases. However, trends match clinical expectation and the results highlight both the subject-specificity of the model, as well as significant inter-subject variability.

Update in acute respiratory distress syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterized by permeability pulmonary edema and refractory hypoxemia. Recently, the new definition of ARDS has been published, and this definition suggested severity-oriented respiratory treatment by introducing three levels of severity according to PaO₂/FiO₂ and positive end-expiratory pressure. Lung-protective ventilation is still the key of better outcome in ARDS. Through randomized trials, short-term use of neuromuscular blockade at initial stage of mechanical ventilation, prone ventilation in severe ARDS, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in ARDS with influenza pneumonia showed beneficial efficacy. However, ARDS mortality still remains high. Therefore, early recognition of ARDS modified risk factors and the avoidance of aggravating factors during the patient's hospital stay can help decrease its development. In addition, efficient antifibrotic strategies in late-stage ARDS should be developed to improve the outcome.

High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels for mechanically ventilated adult patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

Mortality in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains high. These patients require mechanical ventilation, but this modality has been associated with ventilator-induced lung injury. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) could reduce this condition and improve patient survival.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of high versus low levels of PEEP in patients with ALI and ARDS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2013), EMBASE (1982 to May 2013), LILACS (1982 to May 2013) and SCI (Science Citation Index). We used the Science Citation Index to find references that have cited the identified trials. We did not specifically conduct manual searches of abstracts of conference proceedings for this review. We also searched for ongoing trials (www.trialscentral.org; www.clinicaltrial.gov and www.controlled-trials.com).    

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of two levels of PEEP in ALI and ARDS participants who were intubated and mechanically ventilated in intensive care for at least 24 hours.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed the trial quality and extracted data independently. We contacted investigators to identify additional published and unpublished studies. 

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies that compared high versus low levels of PEEP (2565 participants). In five of the studies (2417 participants), a comparison was made between high and low levels of PEEP with the same tidal volume in both groups, but in the remaining two studies (148 participants), the tidal volume was different between high- and low-level groups. We saw evidence of risk of bias in three studies, and the remaining studies fulfilled all criteria for adequate trial quality.In the main analysis, we assessed mortality occurring before hospital discharge only in those studies that compared high versus low PEEP with the same tidal volume in both groups. With the three studies that were included, the meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.01), nor was any statistically significant difference seen in the risk of barotrauma (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.42). Oxygenation was improved in the high-PEEP group, although data derived from the studies showed a considerable degree of statistical heterogeneity. The number of ventilator-free days showed no significant difference between the two groups. Available data were insufficient to allow pooling of length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). The subgroup of participants with ARDS showed decreased mortality in the ICU, although it must be noted that in two of the three included studies, the authors used a protective ventilatory strategy involving a low tidal volume and high levels of PEEP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence indicates that high levels of PEEP, as compared with low levels, did not reduce mortality before hospital discharge. The data also show that high levels of PEEP produced no significant difference in the risk of barotrauma, but rather improved participants' oxygenation to the first, third, and seventh days. This review indicates that the included studies were characterized by clinical heterogeneity.  

Recruitment and PEEP level influences long-time aeration in saline-lavaged piglets: an experimental model

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate aeration/ventilation in saline-lavaged piglets during a 3-h follow-up after a recruitment maneuver (RM)/PEEP titration compared with PEEP 10 cmH2O without a RM.

BACKGROUND

Lung recruitment and PEEP titration are used to find a PEEP preventing repetitive opening/collapsing of lung.

METHODS

Twenty-one lung-lavaged piglets, mean age 7 weeks and mean weight 10 kg; a RM-group and a PEEP10-group, were ventilated at PEEP 5 cmH2O (baseline) followed by zero PEEP ventilation. In the RM-group, tidal elimination of CO2 and dynamic compliance (Cdyn) guided recruitment and PEEP titration, respectively. A final 3-h ventilation followed using PEEP 2 cmH2O above the first decline of Cdyn and end-inspiratory pressure (EIP) for a target tidal volume (VT) of 10 ml · kg(-1). In the PEEP10-group, PEEP 10 cmH2O without a RM was used during the final 3-h ventilation. CT scans and blood gases were repeated every 30 min. Airway pressures, Cdyn and hemodynamics were continuously recorded.

RESULTS

Aeration improved without differences between groups. The RM-group PEEP level of 10 ± 0.6 cmH2O did not differ from the PEEP10-group. Compared to baseline EIP was lower in the RM-group after 3-h ventilation. In both groups, driving pressure (DP) was lower and Cdyn higher than baseline. In the RM-group, final EIP and DP were lower and Cdyn higher than in the PEEP10-group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both RM/PEEP titration and PEEP elevation resulted in improved aeration without differences between groups at the end point. Lung aeration was achieved at lower EIP and DP and higher Cdyn in the RM-group than in the PEEP10-group.

Acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

Every year, more information accumulates about the possibility of treating patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome with specially designed mechanical ventilation strategies. Ventilator modes, positive end-expiratory pressure settings, and recruitment maneuvers play a major role in these strategies. However, what can we take from these experimental and clinical data to the clinical practice? In this article, we discuss substantial options of mechanical ventilation together with some adjunctive therapeutic measures, such as prone positioning and inhalation of nitric oxide.

Recruit the lung before titrating the right positive end-expiratory pressure to protect it

The optimal level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients is still controversial and has gained renewed interest in the era of 'lung protective ventilation strategies'. Despite experimental evidence that higher levels of PEEP protect against ventilator-induced lung injury, recent clinical trials have failed to demonstrate clear survival benefits. The open-lung protective ventilation strategy combines lung recruitment maneuvers with a decremental PEEP trial aimed at finding the minimum level of PEEP that prevents the lung from collapsing. This approach to PEEP titration is more likely to exert its protective effects and is clearly different from the one used in previous clinical trials.