Personalized mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome

Practical Aspects of Esophageal Pressure Monitoring in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Esophageal pressure (P_es) monitoring is a minimally invasive advanced respiratory monitoring method with the potential to guide ventilation support management. P_es monitoring enables the separation of lung and chest wall mechanics and estimation of transpulmonary pressure, which is recognized as an important risk factor for lung injury during both spontaneous breathing and mechanical ventilation. Appropriate balloon positioning, calibration, and measurement techniques are important to avoid inaccurate results. Both the approach of using absolute expiratory Pes values and the approach based on tidal Pes difference have shown promising results for ventilation adjustments, with the potential to decrease the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury.

Mechanical ventilation for COVID-19: Outcomes following discharge from inpatient treatment

Though mechanical ventilation (MV) is used to treat patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), little is known about the long-term health implications of this treatment. Our objective was to determine the association between MV for treatment of COVID-19 and likelihood of hospital readmission, all-cause mortality, and reason for readmission. This study was a longitudinal observational design with electronic health record (EHR) data collected between 3/1/2020 and 1/31/2021. Participants included 17,652 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during this period who were followed through 6/30/2021. The primary outcome was readmission to inpatient care following discharge. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and reason for readmission. Rates of readmission and mortality were compared between ventilated and non-ventilated patients using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Differences in reasons for readmission by MV status were compared using multinomial logistic regression. Patient characteristics and measures of illness severity were balanced between those who were mechanically ventilated and those who were not utilizing 1-to-1 propensity score matching. The sample had a median age of 63 and was 47.1% female. There were 1,131 (6.4%) patients who required MV during their initial hospitalization. Rates (32.1% versus 9.9%) and hazard of readmission were greater for patients requiring MV in the propensity score-matched samples [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 3.34 (2.72-4.10)]. Rates (15.3% versus 3.4%) and hazard [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 3.12 (2.32-4.20)] of all-cause mortality were also associated with MV status. Ventilated patients were more likely to be readmitted for reasons which were classified as COVID-19, infectious diseases, and respiratory diagnoses compared to non-ventilated patients. Mechanical ventilation is a necessary treatment for severely ill patients. However, it may be associated with adverse outcomes including hospital readmission and death. More intense post-discharge monitoring may be warranted to decrease this associational finding.

Hypothesis-driven modeling of the human lung-ventilator system: A characterization tool for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome research

Mechanical ventilation is an essential tool in the management of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), but it exposes patients to the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). The human lung-ventilator system (LVS) involves the interaction of complex anatomy with a mechanical apparatus, which limits the ability of process-based models to provide individualized clinical support. This work proposes a hypothesis-driven strategy for LVS modeling in which robust personalization is achieved using a pre-defined parameter basis in a non-physiological model. Model inversion, here via windowed data assimilation, forges observed waveforms into interpretable parameter values that characterize the data rather than quantifying physiological processes. Accurate, model-based inference on human-ventilator data indicates model flexibility and utility over a variety of breath types, including those from dyssynchronous LVSs. Estimated parameters generate static characterizations of the data that are 50%-70% more accurate than breath-wise single-compartment model estimates. They also retain sufficient information to distinguish between the types of breath they represent. However, the fidelity and interpretability of model characterizations are tied to parameter definitions and model resolution. These additional factors must be considered in conjunction with the objectives of specific applications, such as identifying and tracking the development of human VILI.

The calibration of esophageal pressure by proper esophageal balloon filling volume: A clinical study

Background

Esophageal pressure (Pes) can be used as a reliable surrogate for pleural pressure, especially in critically ill patients requiring personalized mechanical ventilation strategies. How to choose the proper esophageal balloon filling volume and then find the optimal value of esophageal pressure remains a challenge. The study aimed to assess the feasibility of catheters for Pes monitoring in mechanically ventilated patients.

Materials and methods

Twelve patients under pressure-controlled mechanical ventilation were included in this study. Raw esophageal pressure was recorded at different balloon filling volumes. Then, the P-V curves were determined. V _WORK was the intermediate linear section on the end-expiratory P-V curve, and V _BEST was the filling volume providing the maximum difference between Pes at end-inspiration and end-expiration. The raw value of Pes was recorded, and the calibrated values of Pes were calculated by calculating the esophageal wall pressure (Pew) and esophageal elastance (Ees).

Results

Twenty-four series of Pes measurements were performed. The mean V _MIN and V _MAX were 2.17 ± 0.49 ml (range, 1.0-3.0 ml) and 6.79 ± 0.83 ml (range, 5.0-9.0 ml), respectively, whereas V _BEST was 4.69 ± 0.16 ml (range, 2.0-8.0 ml). Ees was 1.35 ± 0.51 cm H₂O/ml (range, 0.26-2.38 cm H₂O/ml). The estimated Pew at V _BEST was 3.16 ± 2.19 cm H₂O (range, 0-7.97 cm H₂O). Patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m² had a significantly lower V _MAX (5.88 [5.25-6] vs. 7.25 [7-8] ml, p = 0.006) and a significantly lower V _BEST (3.69 [2.5-4.38] vs. 5.19 [4-6] ml, p = 0.036) than patients with a BMI < 25 kg/m². Patients with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ≥ 10 cm H₂O had a lower V _MIN and V _BEST than patients with PEEP < 10 cm H₂O, P > 0.05. Patients in the supine position had a higher esophageal pressure than those in the prone position with the same balloon filling volume.

Conclusions

Calibration of esophageal pressure to identify the best filling volume of esophageal balloon catheters is feasible. The esophageal pressure can be influenced by BMI, PEEP, and position. It is necessary to titrate the optimal inflation volume again when the PEEP values or the positions change.

Ten rules for optimizing ventilatory settings and targets in post-cardiac arrest patients

Cardiac arrest (CA) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality frequently associated with neurological and systemic involvement. Supportive therapeutic strategies such as mechanical ventilation, hemodynamic settings, and temperature management have been implemented in the last decade in post-CA patients, aiming at protecting both the brain and the lungs and preventing systemic complications. A lung-protective ventilator strategy is currently the standard of care among critically ill patients since it demonstrated beneficial effects on mortality, ventilator-free days, and other clinical outcomes. The role of protective and personalized mechanical ventilation setting in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome and after CA is becoming more evident. The individual effect of different parameters of lung-protective ventilation, including mechanical power as well as the optimal oxygen and carbon dioxide targets, on clinical outcomes is a matter of debate in post-CA patients. The management of hemodynamics and temperature in post-CA patients represents critical steps for obtaining clinical improvement. The aim of this review is to summarize and discuss current evidence on how to optimize mechanical ventilation in post-CA patients. We will provide ten tips and key insights to apply a lung-protective ventilator strategy in post-CA patients, considering the interplay between the lungs and other systems and organs, including the brain.

Time constant to determine PEEP levels in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that the measured expiratory time constant (TauE) could be a bedside parameter for the evaluation of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients during pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV).

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted including consecutively admitted adults (n = 16) with COVID-19-related ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation. A PEEP titration using PCV with a fixed driving pressure of 14 cmH₂O was performed and TauE recorded at each PEEP level (0 to 18 cmH₂O) in prone (n = 29) or supine (n = 24) positions. The PEEP setting with the highest TauE (TauE_MAX) was considered to represent the best tradeoff between recruitment and overdistention.

RESULTS

Two groups of patterns were observed in the TauE plots: recruitable (R) (75%) and nonrecruitable (NR) (25%). In the R group, the optimal PEEP and PEEP ranges were 8 ± 3 cmH₂O and 6-10 cmH₂O for the prone position and 9 ± 3 cmH₂O and 7-12 cmH₂O for the supine position. In the NR group, the optimal PEEP and PEEP ranges were 4 ± 4 cmH₂O and 1-8 cmH₂O for the prone position and 5 ± 3 cmH₂O and 1-7 cmH₂O for the supine position, respectively. The R group showed significantly higher optimal PEEP (p < 0.004) and PEEP ranges (p < 0.001) than the NR group. Forty-five percent of measurements resulted in the most optimal PEEP being significantly different between the positions (p < 0.01). Moderate positive correlation has been found between TauE vs C_RS at all PEEP levels (r² = 0.43, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TauE may be a novel method to assess PEEP levels. There was wide variation in patient responses to PEEP, which indicates the need for personalized evaluation.

Respiratory system mechanics, gas exchange, and outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The association of respiratory mechanics, particularly respiratory system static compliance (C_RS), with severity of hypoxaemia in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been widely debated, with some studies reporting distinct ARDS phenotypes based on C_RS. Ascertaining whether such phenotypes exist is important, because they might indicate the need for ventilation strategies that differ from those used in patients with ARDS due to other causes. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between Dec 1, 2019, and March 14, 2022, we evaluated respiratory system mechanics, ventilator parameters, gas exchange parameters, and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Among 11 356 patients in 37 studies, mean reported C_RS, measured close to the time of endotracheal intubation, was 35·8 mL/cm H₂O (95% CI 33·9-37·8; I²=96·9%, τ²=32·6). Pooled mean C_RS was normally distributed. Increasing ARDS severity (assessed by PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio as mild, moderate, or severe) was associated with decreasing C_RS. We found no evidence for distinct C_RS-based clinical phenotypes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS, and we therefore conclude that no change in conventional lung-protective ventilation strategies is warranted. Future studies should explore the personalisation of mechanical ventilation strategies according to factors including respiratory system mechanics and haemodynamic status in patients with ARDS.

Oxygenation versus driving pressure for determining the best positive end-expiratory pressure in acute respiratory distress syndrome

Objective

The aim of this prospective longitudinal study was to compare driving pressure and absolute PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio in determining the best positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level.

Patients and methods

In 122 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, PEEP was increased until plateau pressure reached 30 cmH₂O at constant tidal volume, then decreased at 15-min intervals, to 15, 10, and 5 cmH₂O. The best PEEP by PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (PEEP_O2) was defined as the highest PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio obtained, and the best PEEP by driving pressure (PEEP_DP) as the lowest driving pressure. The difference between the best PEEP levels was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 cmH₂O.

Main results

The best mean PEEP_O2 value was 11.9 ± 4.7 cmH₂O compared to 10.6 ± 4.1 cmH₂O for the best PEEP_DP: mean difference = 1.3 cmH₂O (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.4–2.3; one-tailed P value, 0.36). Only 46 PEEP levels were the same with the two methods (37.7%; 95% CI 29.6–46.5). PEEP level was ≥ 15 cmH₂O in 61 (50%) patients with PEEP_O2 and 39 (32%) patients with PEEP_DP (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Depending on the method chosen, the best PEEP level varies. The best PEEP_DP level is lower than the best PEEP_O2 level. Computing driving pressure is simple, faster and less invasive than measuring PaO₂. However, our results do not demonstrate that one method deserves preference over the other in terms of patient outcome.

Clinical trial number: #ACTRN12618000554268. Registered 13 April 2018.

Predicting mechanically ventilated patients future respiratory system elastance - A stochastic modelling approach

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Respiratory mechanics of mechanically ventilated patients evolve significantly with time, disease state and mechanical ventilation (MV) treatment. Existing deterministic data prediction methods fail to comprehensively describe the multiple sources of heterogeneity of biological systems. This research presents two respiratory mechanics stochastic models with increased prediction accuracy and range, offering improved clinical utility in MV treatment.

METHODS

Two stochastic models (SM2 and SM3) were developed using retrospective patient respiratory elastance (E_rs) from two clinical cohorts which were averaged over time intervals of 10 and 30 min respectively. A stochastic model from a previous study (SM1) was used to benchmark performance. The stochastic models were clinically validated on an independent retrospective clinical cohort of 14 patients. Differences in predictive ability were evaluated using the difference in percentile lines and cumulative distribution density (CDD) curves.

RESULTS

Clinical validation shows all three models captured more than 98% (median) of future E_rs data within the 5th - 95th percentile range. Comparisons of stochastic model percentile lines reported a maximum mean absolute percentage difference of 5.2%. The absolute differences of CDD curves were less than 0.25 in the ranges of 5 < E_rs (cmH₂O/L) < 85, suggesting similar predictive capabilities within this clinically relevant E_rs range.

CONCLUSION

The new stochastic models significantly improve prediction, clinical utility, and thus feasibility for synchronisation with clinical interventions. Paired with other MV protocols, the stochastic models developed can potentially form part of decision support systems, providing guided, personalised, and safe MV treatment.

Personalized medicine using omics approaches in acute respiratory distress syndrome to identify biological phenotypes

In the last decade, research on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has made considerable progress. However, ARDS remains a leading cause of mortality in the intensive care unit. ARDS presents distinct subphenotypes with different clinical and biological features. The pathophysiologic mechanisms of ARDS may contribute to the biological variability and partially explain why some pharmacologic therapies for ARDS have failed to improve patient outcomes. Therefore, identifying ARDS variability and heterogeneity might be a key strategy for finding effective treatments. Research involving studies on biomarkers and genomic, metabolomic, and proteomic technologies is increasing. These new approaches, which are dedicated to the identification and quantitative analysis of components from biological matrixes, may help differentiate between different types of damage and predict clinical outcome and risk. Omics technologies offer a new opportunity for the development of diagnostic tools and personalized therapy in ARDS. This narrative review assesses recent evidence regarding genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics in ARDS research.

Correlation between the hysteresis of the pressure–volume curve and the recruitment-to-inflation ratio in patients with coronavirus disease 2019

Background

Since the response to lung recruitment varies greatly among patients receiving mechanical ventilation, lung recruitability should be assessed before recruitment maneuvers. The pressure–volume curve (PV curve) and recruitment-to-inflation ratio (R/I ratio) can be used bedside for evaluating lung recruitability and individualing positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Lung tissue recruitment on computed tomography has been correlated with normalized maximal distance (NMD) of the quasi-static PV curve. NMD is the maximal distance between the inspiratory and expiratory limb of the PV curve normalized to the maximal volume. However, the relationship between the different parameters of hysteresis of the quasi-static PV curve and R/I ratio for recruitability is unknown.

Methods

We analyzed the data of 33 patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who received invasive mechanical ventilation. Respiratory waveform data were collected from the ventilator using proprietary acquisition software. We examined the relationship of the R/I ratio, quasi-static PV curve items such as NMD, and respiratory system compliance (C_rs).

Results

The median R/I ratio was 0.90 [interquartile range (IQR), 0.70–1.15] and median NMD was 41.0 [IQR, 37.1–44.1]. The NMD correlated significantly with the R/I ratio (rho = 0.74, P < 0.001). Sub-analysis showed that the NMD and R/I ratio did not correlate with C_rs at lower PEEP (− 0.057, P = 0.75; and rho = 0.15, P = 0.41, respectively). On the contrary, the ratio of C_rs at higher PEEP to C_rs at lower PEEP (C_rs ratio (higher/lower)) moderately correlated with NMD and R/I ratio (rho = 0.64, P < 0.001; and rho = 0.67, P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

NMD of the quasi-static PV curve and R/I ratio for recruitability assessment are highly correlated. In addition, NMD and R/I ratio correlated with the C_rs ratio (higher/lower). Therefore, NMD and R/I ratio could be potential indicators of recruitability that can be performed at the bedside.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-022-01081-x.

Heterogeneity of Ventilation/Perfusion Mismatch at Different Levels of PEEP and in Mechanical Phenotypes of COVID-19 ARDS

BACKGROUND

COVID-19-related ARDS is characterized by severe hypoxemia with initially preserved lung compliance and impaired ventilation/perfusion (V̇/Q̇) matching. PEEP can increase end-expiratory lung volume, but its effect on V̇/Q̇ mismatch in COVID-19-related ARDS is not clear.

METHODS

We enrolled intubated and mechanically ventilated subjects with COVID-19 ARDS and used the automatic lung parameter estimator (ALPE) to measure V̇/Q̇. Respiratory mechanics measurements, shunt, and V̇/Q̇ mismatch (low V̇/Q̇ and high V̇/Q̇) were collected at 3 PEEP levels (clinical PEEP = intermediate PEEP, low PEEP [clinical - 50%], and high PEEP [clinical + 50%]). A mixed-effect model was used to evaluate the impact of PEEP on V̇/Q̇. We also investigated if PEEP might have a different effect on V̇/Q̇ mismatch in 2 different respiratory mechanics phenotypes, that is, high elastance/low compliance (phenotype H) and low elastance/high compliance (phenotype L).

RESULTS

Seventeen subjects with COVID-related ARDS age 66 [60-71] y with a PaO2 /FIO2 of 141 ± 74 mm Hg were studied at low PEEP = 5.6 ± 2.2 cm H2O, intermediate PEEP = 10.6 ± 3.8 cm H2O, and high PEEP = 15 ± 5 cm H2O. Shunt, low V̇/Q̇, high V̇/Q̇, and alveolar dead space were not significantly influenced, on average, by PEEP. Respiratory system compliance decreased significantly when increasing PEEP without significant variation of PaO2 /FIO2 (P = .26). In the 2 phenotypes, PEEP had opposite effects on shunt, with a decrease in the phenotype L and an increase in phenotype H (P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with COVID-related ARDS placed on invasive mechanical ventilation for > 48 h, PEEP had a heterogeneous effect on V̇/Q̇ mismatch and, on average, higher levels were not able to reduce shunt. The subject's compliance could influence the effect of PEEP on V̇/Q̇ mismatch since an increased shunt was observed in subjects with lower compliance, whereas the opposite occurred in those with higher compliance.

Cardiorespiratory effects of different intraabdominal pressures in sheep: An experimental study

Increased intraabdominal pressure (IAP) during laparoscopy can reduce venous return, but changes in respiratory system mechanics and their effect in left cardiac function are not well documented. This study evaluated the effects of different IAPs on respiratory mechanics and cardiac function in 10 healthy nonpregnant adult Santa Ines ewes randomly submitted to a crossover study using different IAPs: 0 mm Hg (G1), 10 mm Hg (G2), 12 mmHg (G3), and 15 mmHg (G4). Animals were anesthetized and mechanically ventilated (VT  = 15 ml/kg; positive end-expiratory pressure = 3 cmH2 O; FiO2  = 1.0). Pneumoperitoneum was induced by Hasson's trocar cannula. Variables were measured at INITIAL (IAP, 0 mmHg) and FINAL time points for each IAP after 1 h. At FINAL, driving airway pressure (ΔP,RS ), and percentage fraction of dead space (Vd/Vt) were higher in G3 and G4 than G1 (p = 0.002, difference in means [MD] 4.60, 95% CI: 7.91-1.28, and p < 0.001, MD 5.4, 95% CI: 8.7-2.0; p = 0.016, MD -9.5, 95% CI: -17.9 to -1.2; and p = 0.027, MD -8.7, 95% CI: -17.1 to -0.4). The ejection fraction and fractional shortening were lower in G3 (p = 0.039, MD -11.38, 95% CI: -0.07--22.68; p = 0.015, MD -13.05, 95% CI: -1.74--24.36) and G4 (p = 0.039, MD -9.94, 95% CI: -0.07 to -19.80; p = 0.015, MD -11.43, 95%CI: -1.57 to -21.30, respectively) than G2. In G3, the maximum pulmonary flow velocity correlated negatively with ΔP,RS (r = -0.740; p = 0.018), and Vd/Vt correlated positively with ΔP,RS (r = 0.738, p = 0.046). At IAP of 12 and 15 mm Hg impaired respiratory system mechanics, reduced left cardiac function and no change in maximum pulmonary artery flow velocity were detected. Therefore, respiratory mechanics should be monitored as an interplay to reduce left cardiac function.

Association between intraoperative tidal volume and postoperative respiratory complications is dependent on respiratory elastance: a retrospective, multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

The impact of high vs low intraoperative tidal volumes on postoperative respiratory complications remains unclear. We hypothesised that the effect of intraoperative tidal volume on postoperative respiratory complications is dependent on respiratory system elastance.

METHODS

We retrospectively recorded tidal volume (Vt; ml kg^-1 ideal body weight [IBW]) in patients undergoing elective, non-cardiothoracic surgery from hospital registry data. The primary outcome was respiratory failure (requiring reintubation within 7 days of surgery, desaturation after extubation, or both). The primary exposure was defined as the interaction between Vt and standardised respiratory system elastance (driving pressure divided by Vt; cm H₂O/[ml kg^-1]). Multivariable logistic regression models, with and without interaction terms (which categorised Vt as low [Vt ≤8 ml kg^-1] or high [Vt >8 ml kg^-1]), were adjusted for potential confounders. Additional analyses included path mediation analysis and fractional polynomial modelling.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 821/197 474 (5.5%) patients sustained postoperative respiratory complications. Higher Vt was associated with greater risk of postoperative respiratory complications (adjusted odds ratio=1.42 per ml kg^-1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.50]; P<0.001). This association was modified by respiratory system elastance (P<0.001); in patients with low compliance (<42.4 ml cm H₂O^-1), higher Vt was associated with greater risk of postoperative respiratory complications (adjusted risk difference=0.3% [95% CI, 0.0-0.5] at 41.2 ml cm H₂O^-1 compliance, compared with 5.8% [95% CI, 3.8-7.8] at 14 ml cm H₂O^-1 compliance). This association was absent when compliance exceeded 41.2 ml cm H₂O^-1. Adverse effects associated with high Vt were entirely mediated by driving pressures (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The association of harm with higher tidal volumes during intraoperative mechanical ventilation is modified by respiratory system elastance. These data suggest that respiratory elastance should inform the design of perioperative trials testing intraoperative ventilatory strategies.

Myths and Misconceptions of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation: Getting Past the Noise and on to the Signal

In the pursuit of science, competitive ideas and debate are necessary means to attain knowledge and expose our ignorance. To quote Murray Gell-Mann (1969 Nobel Prize laureate in Physics): "Scientific orthodoxy kills truth". In mechanical ventilation, the goal is to provide the best approach to support patients with respiratory failure until the underlying disease resolves, while minimizing iatrogenic damage. This compromise characterizes the philosophy behind the concept of "lung protective" ventilation. Unfortunately, inadequacies of the current conceptual model-that focuses exclusively on a nominal value of low tidal volume and promotes shrinking of the "baby lung" - is reflected in the high mortality rate of patients with moderate and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. These data call for exploration and investigation of competitive models evaluated thoroughly through a scientific process. Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) is one of the most studied yet controversial modes of mechanical ventilation that shows promise in experimental and clinical data. Over the last 3 decades APRV has evolved from a rescue strategy to a preemptive lung injury prevention approach with potential to stabilize the lung and restore alveolar homogeneity. However, several obstacles have so far impeded the evaluation of APRV's clinical efficacy in large, randomized trials. For instance, there is no universally accepted standardized method of setting APRV and thus, it is not established whether its effects on clinical outcomes are due to the ventilator mode per se or the method applied. In addition, one distinctive issue that hinders proper scientific evaluation of APRV is the ubiquitous presence of myths and misconceptions repeatedly presented in the literature. In this review we discuss some of these misleading notions and present data to advance scientific discourse around the uses and misuses of APRV in the current literature.

Treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: A narrative review of phase 2 and 3 trials

INTRODUCTION

Ventilatory management and general supportive care of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the adult population have led to significant clinical improvements, but morbidity and mortality remain high. Pharmacologic strategies acting on the coagulation cascade, inflammation, oxidative stress, and endothelial cell injury have been targeted in the last decade for patients with ARDS, but only a few of these have shown potential benefits with a meaningful clinical response and improved patient outcomes. The lack of availability of specific pharmacologic treatments for ARDS can be attributed to its complex pathophysiology, different risk factors, huge heterogeneity, and difficult classification into specific biological phenotypes and genotypes.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, we briefly discuss the relevance and current advances in pharmacologic treatments for ARDS in adults and the need for the development of new pharmacological strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

Identification of ARDS phenotypes, risk factors, heterogeneity, and pathophysiology may help to design clinical trials personalized according to ARDS-specific features, thus hopefully decreasing the rate of failed clinical pharmacologic trials. This concept is still under clinical investigation and needs further development.

Invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving extracorporeal support: a narrative review of strategies to mitigate lung injury

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is indicated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and severely impaired gas exchange despite evidence-based lung protective ventilation, prone positioning and other parts of the standard algorithm for treating such patients. Extracorporeal support can facilitate ultra-lung-protective ventilation, meaning even lower volumes and pressures than standard lung-protective ventilation, by directly removing carbon dioxide in patients needing injurious ventilator settings to maintain sufficient gas exchange. Injurious ventilation results in ventilator-induced lung injury, which is one of the main determinants of mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Marked reductions in the intensity of ventilation to the lowest tolerable levels under extracorporeal support may be achieved and could thereby potentially mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury and theoretically patient self-inflicted lung injury in spontaneously breathing patients with high respiratory drive. However, the benefits of this strategy may be counterbalanced by the use of continuous deep sedation and even neuromuscular blocking drugs, which may impair physical rehabilitation and impact long-term outcomes. There are currently a lack of large-scale prospective data to inform optimal invasive ventilation practices and how to best apply a holistic approach to patients receiving veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, while minimising ventilator-induced and patient self-inflicted lung injury. We aimed to review the literature relating to invasive ventilation strategies in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving extracorporeal support and discuss personalised ventilation approaches and the potential role of adjunctive therapies in facilitating lung protection.

Lung Mechanics Over the Century: From Bench to Bedside and Back to Bench

Lung physiology research advanced significantly over the last 100 years. Respiratory mechanics applied to animal models of lung disease extended the knowledge of the workings of respiratory system. In human research, a better understanding of respiratory mechanics has contributed to development of mechanical ventilators. In this review, we explore the use of respiratory mechanics in basic science to investigate asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We also discuss the use of lung mechanics in clinical care and its role on the development of modern mechanical ventilators. Additionally, we analyse some bench-developed technologies that are not in widespread use in the present but can become part of the clinical arsenal in the future. Finally, we explore some of the difficult questions that intensive care doctors still face when managing respiratory failure. Bringing back these questions to bench can help to solve them. Interaction between basic and translational science and human subject investigation can be very rewarding, as in the conceptualization of “Lung Protective Ventilation” principles. We expect this interaction to expand further generating new treatments and managing strategies for patients with respiratory disease.

Effects of non-invasive respiratory supports on inspiratory effort in moderate-severe COVID-19 patients. A randomized physiological study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

Various forms of Non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) have been used during COVID-19, to treat Hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure (HARF), but it has been suggested that the occurrence of strenuous inspiratory efforts may cause Self Induced Lung Injury(P-SILI). The aim of this investigation was to record esophageal pressure, when starting NRS application, so as to better understand the potential risk of the patients in terms of P-SILI and ventilator induced lung injury (VILI).

METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS

21 patients with early de-novo respiratory failure due to COVID-19, underwent three 30 min trials applied in random order: high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). After each trial, standard oxygen therapy was reinstituted using a Venturi mask (VM). 15 patients accepted a nasogastric tube placement. Esophageal Pressure (ΔPes) and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPLDyn), together with the breathing pattern using a bioelectrical impedance monitor were recorded. Arterial blood gases were collected in all patients.

MAIN RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in breathing pattern and PaCO₂ were found. PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio improved significantly during NIV and CPAP vs VM. NIV was the only NRS to reduce significantly ΔPes vs. VM (-10,2 ±5 cmH20 vs -3,9 ±3,4). No differences were found in ΔPLDyn between NRS (10,2±5; 9,9±3,8; 7,6±4,3; 8,8±3,6 during VM, HFNC, CPAP and NIV respectively). Minute ventilation (Ve) was directly dependent on the patient's inspiratory effort, irrespective of the NRS applied. 14% of patients were intubated, none of them showing a reduction in ΔPes during NRS.

CONCLUSIONS

In the early phase of HARF due to COVID-19, the inspiratory effort may not be markedly elevated and the application of NIV and CPAP ameliorates oxygenation vs VM. NIV was superior in reducing ΔPes, maintaining ΔPLDyn within a range of potential safety.

Thoracic Computed Tomography to Assess ARDS and COVID-19 Lungs

This review was designed to discuss the role of thoracic-computed tomography (CT) in the evaluation and treatment of patients with ARDS and COVID-19 lung disease. Non-aerated lungs characterize the ARDS lungs, compared to normal lungs in the lowermost lung regions, compressive atelectasis. Heterogenous ARDS lungs have a tomographic vertical gradient characterized by progressively more aerated lung tissues from the gravity-dependent to gravity-independent lungs levels. The application of positive pressure ventilation to these heterogeneous ARDS lungs provides some areas of high shear stress, others of tidal hyperdistension or tidal recruitment that increases the chances of appearance and perpetuation of ventilator-induced lung injury. Other than helping to the correct diagnosis of ARDS, thoracic-computed tomography can help to the adjustments of PEEP, ideal tidal volume, and a better choice of patient position during invasive mechanical ventilation. Thoracic tomography can also help detect possible intra-thoracic complications and in the follow-up of the ARDS patients’ evolution during their hospital stay. In COVID-19 patients, thoracic-computed tomography was the most sensitive imaging technique for diagnosing pulmonary involvement. The most common finding is diffuse pulmonary infiltrates, ranging from ground-glass opacities to parenchymal consolidations, especially in the lower portions of the lungs’ periphery. Tomographic lung volume loss was associated with an increased risk for oxygenation support and patient intubation and the use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Pulmonary dual-energy angio-tomography in COVID-19 patients showed a significant number of pulmonary ischemic areas even in the absence of visible pulmonary arterial thrombosis, which may reflect micro-thrombosis associated with COVID-19 pneumonia. A greater thoracic tomography severity score in ARDS was independently related to poor outcomes.

Laboratory Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Prognosis in COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, with progression to multiorgan failure in the most severe cases. Several biomarkers can be altered in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and they can be associated with diagnosis, prognosis, and outcomes. The most used biomarkers in COVID-19 include several proinflammatory cytokines, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), aspartate transaminase (AST), neutrophil count, neutrophils-to-lymphocytes ratio, troponins, creatine kinase (MB), myoglobin, D-dimer, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and its N-terminal pro-hormone (NT-proBNP). Some of these biomarkers can be readily used to predict disease severity, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality, while others, such as metabolomic and proteomic analysis, have not yet translated to clinical practice. This narrative review aims to identify laboratory biomarkers that have shown significant diagnostic and prognostic value for risk stratification in COVID-19 and discuss the possible clinical application of novel analytic strategies, like metabolomics and proteomics. Future research should focus on identifying a limited but essential number of laboratory biomarkers to easily predict prognosis and outcome in severe COVID-19.

Respiratory drive, inspiratory effort, and work of breathing: review of definitions and non-invasive monitoring tools for intensive care ventilators during pandemic times

Technological advances in mechanical ventilation have been essential to increasing the survival rate in intensive care units. Usually, patients needing mechanical ventilation use controlled ventilation to override the patient’s respiratory muscles and favor lung protection. Weaning from mechanical ventilation implies a transition towards spontaneous breathing, mainly using assisted mechanical ventilation. In this transition, the challenge for clinicians is to avoid under and over assistance and minimize excessive respiratory effort and iatrogenic diaphragmatic and lung damage. Esophageal balloon monitoring allows objective measurements of respiratory muscle activity in real time, but there are still limitations to its routine application in intensive care unit patients using mechanical ventilation. Like the esophageal balloon, respiratory muscle electromyography and diaphragmatic ultrasound are minimally invasive tools requiring specific training that monitor respiratory muscle activity. Particularly during the coronavirus disease pandemic, non invasive tools available on mechanical ventilators to monitor respiratory drive, inspiratory effort, and work of breathing have been extended to individualize mechanical ventilation based on patient’s needs. This review aims to identify the conceptual definitions of respiratory drive, inspiratory effort, and work of breathing and to identify non invasive maneuvers available on intensive care ventilators to measure these parameters. The literature highlights that although respiratory drive, inspiratory effort, and work of breathing are intuitive concepts, even distinguished authors disagree on their definitions.

Physiological and Pathophysiological Consequences of Mechanical Ventilation

Mechanical ventilation is a life-support system used to ensure blood gas exchange and to assist the respiratory muscles in ventilating the lung during the acute phase of lung disease or following surgery. Positive-pressure mechanical ventilation differs considerably from normal physiologic breathing. This may lead to several negative physiological consequences, both on the lungs and on peripheral organs. First, hemodynamic changes can affect cardiovascular performance, cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), and drainage of renal veins. Second, the negative effect of mechanical ventilation (compression stress) on the alveolar-capillary membrane and extracellular matrix may cause local and systemic inflammation, promoting lung and peripheral-organ injury. Third, intra-abdominal hypertension may further impair lung and peripheral-organ function during controlled and assisted ventilation. Mechanical ventilation should be optimized and personalized in each patient according to individual clinical needs. Multiple parameters must be adjusted appropriately to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), including: inspiratory stress (the respiratory system inspiratory plateau pressure); dynamic strain (the ratio between tidal volume and the end-expiratory lung volume, or inspiratory capacity); static strain (the end-expiratory lung volume determined by positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP]); driving pressure (the difference between the respiratory system inspiratory plateau pressure and PEEP); and mechanical power (the amount of mechanical energy imparted as a function of respiratory rate). More recently, patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) has been proposed as a potential mechanism promoting VILI. In the present chapter, we will discuss the physiological and pathophysiological consequences of mechanical ventilation and how to personalize mechanical ventilation parameters.

Understanding the pathophysiology of typical acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe COVID-19

Introduction

Typical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pneumonia share complex pathophysiology, a high mortality rate, and an unmet need for efficient therapeutics.

Areas covered

This review discusses the current advances in understanding the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying typical ARDS and severe COVID-19 pneumonia, highlighting specific aspects of COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure that require attention. Two models have been proposed to describe the mechanisms of respiratory failure associated with typical ARDS and severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Expert opinion

ARDS is defined as a syndrome rather than a distinct pathologic entity. There is great heterogeneity regarding the pathophysiologic, clinical, radiologic, and biological phenotypes in patients with ARDS, challenging clinicians, and scientists to discover new therapies. COVID-19 has been described as a cause of pulmonary ARDS and has reopened many questions regarding the pathophysiology of ARDS itself. COVID-19 lung injury involves direct viral epithelial cell damage and thrombotic and inflammatory reactions. There are some differences between ARDS and COVID-19 lung injury in aspects of aeration distribution, perfusion, and pulmonary vascular responses.

Effects of different positive end-expiratory pressure titration strategies during prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective interventional study

Background

Prone positioning in combination with the application of low tidal volume and adequate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improves survival in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the effects of PEEP on end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (Ptp_exp) during prone positioning require clarification. For this purpose, the effects of three different PEEP titration strategies on Ptp_exp, respiratory mechanics, mechanical power, gas exchange, and hemodynamics were evaluated comparing supine and prone positioning.

Methods

In forty consecutive patients with moderate to severe ARDS protective ventilation with PEEP titrated according to three different titration strategies was evaluated during supine and prone positioning: (A) ARDS Network recommendations (PEEP_ARDSNetwork), (B) the lowest static elastance of the respiratory system (PEEP_Estat,RS), and (C) targeting a positive Ptp_exp (PEEP_Ptpexp). The primary endpoint was to analyze whether Ptp_exp differed significantly according to PEEP titration strategy during supine and prone positioning.

Results

Ptp_exp increased progressively with prone positioning compared with supine positioning as well as with PEEP_Estat,RS and PEEP_Ptpexp compared with PEEP_ARDSNetwork (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). PEEP was lower during prone positioning with PEEP_Estat,RS and PEEP_Ptpexp (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). During supine positioning, mechanical power increased progressively with PEEP_Estat,RS and PEEP_Ptpexp compared with PEEP_ARDSNetwork, and prone positioning attenuated this effect (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). Prone compared with supine positioning significantly improved oxygenation (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001) while hemodynamics remained stable in both positions.

Conclusions

Prone positioning increased transpulmonary pressures while improving oxygenation and hemodynamics in patients with moderate to severe ARDS when PEEP was titrated according to the ARDS Network lower PEEP table. This PEEP titration strategy minimized parameters associated with ventilator-induced lung injury induction, such as transpulmonary driving pressure and mechanical power. We propose that a lower PEEP strategy (PEEP_ARDSNetwork) in combination with prone positioning may be part of a lung protective ventilation strategy in patients with moderate to severe ARDS.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00017449). Registered June 27, 2019. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00017449

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-03956-8.

Reconstructing asynchrony for mechanical ventilation using a hysteresis loop virtual patient model

BACKGROUND

Patient-specific lung mechanics during mechanical ventilation (MV) can be identified from measured waveforms of fully ventilated, sedated patients. However, asynchrony due to spontaneous breathing (SB) effort can be common, altering these waveforms and reducing the accuracy of identified, model-based, and patient-specific lung mechanics.

METHODS

Changes in patient-specific lung elastance over a pressure-volume (PV) loop, identified using hysteresis loop analysis (HLA), are used to detect the occurrence of asynchrony and identify its type and pattern. The identified HLA parameters are then combined with a nonlinear mechanics hysteresis loop model (HLM) to extract and reconstruct ventilated waveforms unaffected by asynchronous breaths. Asynchrony magnitude can then be quantified using an energy-dissipation metric, Easyn, comparing PV loop area between model-reconstructed and original, altered asynchronous breathing cycles. Performance is evaluated using both test-lung experimental data with a known ground truth and clinical data from four patients with varying levels of asynchrony.

RESULTS

Root mean square errors for reconstructed PV loops are within 5% for test-lung experimental data, and 10% for over 90% of clinical data. Easyn clearly matches known asynchrony magnitude for experimental data with RMS errors < 4.1%. Clinical data performance shows 57% breaths having Easyn > 50% for Patient 1 and 13% for Patient 2. Patient 3 only presents 20% breaths with Easyn > 10%. Patient 4 has Easyn = 0 for 96% breaths showing accuracy in a case without asynchrony.

CONCLUSIONS

Experimental test-lung validation demonstrates the method's reconstruction accuracy and generality in controlled scenarios. Clinical validation matches direct observations of asynchrony in incidence and quantifies magnitude, including cases without asynchrony, validating its robustness and potential efficacy as a clinical real-time asynchrony monitoring tool.

Stochastic integrated model-based protocol for volume-controlled ventilation setting

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is the primary form of care for respiratory failure patients. MV settings are based on general clinical guidelines, intuition, and experience. This approach is not patient-specific and patients may thus experience suboptimal, potentially harmful MV care. This study presents the Stochastic integrated VENT (SiVENT) protocol which combines model-based approaches of the VENT protocol from previous works, with stochastic modelling to take the variation of patient respiratory elastance over time into consideration.

METHODS

A stochastic model of Ers is integrated into the VENT protocol from previous works to develop the SiVENT protocol, to account for both intra- and inter-patient variability. A cohort of 20 virtual MV patients based on retrospective patient data are used to validate the performance of this method for volume-controlled (VC) ventilation. A performance evaluation was conducted where the SiVENT and VENT protocols were implemented in 1080 instances each to compare the two protocols and evaluate the difference in reduction of possible MV settings achieved by each.

RESULTS

From an initial number of 189,000 possible MV setting combinations, the VENT protocol reduced this number to a median of 10,612, achieving a reduction of 94.4% across the cohort. With the integration of the stochastic model component, the SiVENT protocol reduced this number from 189,000 to a median of 9329, achieving a reduction of 95.1% across the cohort. The SiVENT protocol reduces the number of possible combinations provided to the user by more than 1000 combinations as compared to the VENT protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a stochastic model component into a model-based approach to selecting MV settings improves the ability of a decision support system to recommend patient-specific MV settings. It specifically considers inter- and intra-patient variability in respiratory elastance and eliminates potentially harmful settings based on clinically recommended pressure thresholds. Clinical input and local protocols can further reduce the number of safe setting combinations. The results for the SiVENT protocol justify further investigation of its prediction accuracy and clinical validation trials.

Protocol conception for safe selection of mechanical ventilation settings for respiratory failure Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Mechanical ventilation is the primary form of care provided to respiratory failure patients. Limited guidelines and conflicting results from major clinical trials means selection of mechanical ventilation settings relies heavily on clinician experience and intuition. Determining optimal mechanical ventilation settings is therefore difficult, where non-optimal mechanical ventilation can be deleterious. To overcome these difficulties, this research proposes a model-based method to manage the wide range of possible mechanical ventilation settings, while also considering patient-specific conditions and responses.

METHODS

This study shows the design and development of the "VENT" protocol, which integrates the single compartment linear lung model with clinical recommendations from landmark studies, to aid clinical decision-making in selecting mechanical ventilation settings. Using retrospective breath data from a cohort of 24 patients, 3,566 and 2,447 clinically implemented VC and PC settings were extracted respectively. Using this data, a VENT protocol application case study and clinical comparison is performed, and the prediction accuracy of the VENT protocol is validated against actual measured outcomes of pressure and volume.

RESULTS

The study shows the VENT protocols' potential use in narrowing an overwhelming number of possible mechanical ventilation setting combinations by up to 99.9%. The comparison with retrospective clinical data showed that only 33% and 45% of clinician settings were approved by the VENT protocol. The unapproved settings were mainly due to exceeding clinical recommended settings. When utilising the single compartment model in the VENT protocol for forecasting peak pressures and tidal volumes, median [IQR] prediction error values of 0.75 [0.31 - 1.83] cmH₂O and 0.55 [0.19 - 1.20] mL/kg were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing the proposed protocol with retrospective clinically implemented settings shows the protocol can prevent harmful mechanical ventilation setting combinations for which clinicians would be otherwise unaware. The VENT protocol warrants a more detailed clinical study to validate its potential usefulness in a clinical setting.

COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on Canada’s intensive care units

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the precarious demand-capacity balance in Canadian hospitals, including critical care where there is an urgent need for trained health care professionals to dramatically increase ICU capacity.

The impact of the pandemic on ICUs varied significantly across the country with provinces that implemented public health measures later and relaxed them sooner being impacted more severely. Pediatric ICUs routinely admitted adult patients. Non-ICU areas were converted to ICUs and staff were redeployed from other essential service areas. Faced with a lack of critical care capacity, triage plans for ICU admission were developed and nearly implemented in some provinces.

Twenty eight percent of patients in Canadian ICUs who required mechanical ventilation died. Surviving patients have required prolonged ICU admission, hospitalization and extensive ongoing rehabilitation. Family members of patients were not permitted to visit, resulting in additional psychological stresses to patients, families, and healthcare teams. ICU professionals also experienced extreme psychological stresses from caring for such large numbers of critically ill patients, often in sub-standard conditions. This resulted in large numbers of health workers leaving their professions.

This pandemic is not yet over, and it is likely that new pandemics will follow. A review and recommendations for the future are provided.

Current Practice of Fluid Maintenance and Replacement Therapy in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Children: A European Survey

Appropriate fluid management in mechanically ventilated critically ill children remains an important challenge and topic of active discussion in pediatric intensive care medicine. An increasing number of studies show an association between a positive fluid balance or fluid overload and adverse outcomes. However, to date, no international consensus regarding fluid management or removal strategies exists. The aim of this study was to obtain more insight into the current clinical practice of fluid therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill children. On behalf of the section of cardiovascular dynamics of the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) we conducted an anonymous survey among pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) specialists in Europe regarding fluid overload and management. A total of 107 study participants responded to the survey. The vast majority of respondents considers fluid overload to be a common phenomenon in mechanically ventilated children and believes this complication is associated with adverse outcomes, such as mortality and duration of respiratory support. Yet, only 75% of the respondents administers a lower volume of fluids (reduction of 20% of normal intake) to mechanically ventilated critically ill children on admission. During PICU stay, a cumulative fluid balance of more than 5% is considered to be an indication to reduce fluid intake and start diuretic treatment in most respondents. Next to fluid balance calculation, the occurrence of peripheral and/or pulmonary edema (as assessed including by chest radiograph and lung ultrasound) was considered an important clinical sign of fluid overload entailing further therapeutic action. In conclusion, fluid overload in mechanically ventilated critically ill children is considered an important problem among PICU specialists, but there is great heterogeneity in the current clinical practice to avoid this complication. We identify a great need for further prospective and randomized investigation of the effects of (restrictive) fluid strategies in the PICU.

Unsuccessful and Successful Clinical Trials in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Addressing Physiology-Based Gaps

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe form of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure caused by an insult to the alveolar-capillary membrane, resulting in a marked reduction of aerated alveoli, increased vascular permeability and subsequent interstitial and alveolar pulmonary edema, reduced lung compliance, increase of physiological dead space, and hypoxemia. Most ARDS patients improve their systemic oxygenation, as assessed by the ratio between arterial partial pressure of oxygen and inspired oxygen fraction, with conventional intensive care and the application of moderate-to-high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure. However, in some patients hypoxemia persisted because the lungs are markedly injured, remaining unresponsive to increasing the inspiratory fraction of oxygen and positive end-expiratory pressure. For decades, mechanical ventilation was the only standard support technique to provide acceptable oxygenation and carbon dioxide removal. Mechanical ventilation provides time for the specific therapy to reverse the disease-causing lung injury and for the recovery of the respiratory function. The adverse effects of mechanical ventilation are direct consequences of the changes in pulmonary airway pressures and intrathoracic volume changes induced by the repetitive mechanical cycles in a diseased lung. In this article, we review 14 major successful and unsuccessful randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with ARDS on a series of techniques to improve oxygenation and ventilation published since 2010. Those trials tested the effects of adjunctive therapies (neuromuscular blocking agents, prone positioning), methods for selecting the optimum positive end-expiratory pressure (after recruitment maneuvers, or guided by esophageal pressure), high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, extracorporeal oxygenation, and pharmacologic immune modulators of the pulmonary and systemic inflammatory responses in patients affected by ARDS. We will briefly comment physiology-based gaps of negative trials and highlight the possible needs to address in future clinical trials in ARDS.

Over-distension prediction via hysteresis loop analysis and patient-specific basis functions in a virtual patient model

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Recruitment maneuvers (RMs) with subsequent positive-end-expiratory-pressure (PEEP) have proven effective in recruiting lung volume and preventing alveolar collapse. However, a suboptimal PEEP could induce undesired injury in lungs by insufficient or excessive breath support. Thus, a predictive model for patient response under PEEP changes could improve clinical care and lower risks.

METHODS

This research adds novel elements to a virtual patient model to identify and predict patient-specific lung distension to optimise and personalise care. Model validity and accuracy are validated using data from 18 volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) patients at 7 different baseline PEEP levels (0-12cmH₂O), yielding 623 prediction cases. Predictions were made up to ΔPEEP = 12cmH₂O ahead covering 6x2cmH₂O PEEP steps.

RESULTS

Using the proposed lung distension model, 90% of absolute peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) prediction errors compared to clinical measurement are within 3.95cmH₂O, compared with 4.76cmH₂O without this distension term. Comparing model-predicted and clinically measured distension had high correlation increasing to R² = 0.93-0.95 if maximum ΔPEEP ≤ 6cmH₂O. Predicted dynamic functional residual capacity (V_frc) changes as PEEP rises yield 0.013L median prediction error for both prediction groups and overall R² of 0.84.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall results demonstrate nonlinear distension mechanics are accurately captured in virtual lung mechanics patients for mechanical ventilation, for the first time. This result can minimise the risk of lung injury by predicting its potential occurrence of distension before changing ventilator settings. The overall outcomes significantly extend and more fully validate this virtual mechanical ventilation patient model.

Ventilator-induced lung-injury in mouse models: Is there a trap?

Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) is a serious acute injury to the lung tissue that can develop during mechanical ventilation of patients. Due to the mechanical strain of ventilation, damage can occur in the bronchiolar and alveolar epithelium resulting in a cascade of events that may be fatal to the patients. Patients requiring mechanical ventilation are often critically ill, which limits the possibility of obtaining patient samples, making VILI research challenging. In vitro models are very important for VILI research, but the complexity of the cellular interactions in multi-organ animals, necessitates in vivo studies where the mouse model is a common choice. However, the settings and duration of ventilation used to create VILI in mice vary greatly, causing uncertainty in interpretation and comparison of results. This review examines approaches to induce VILI in mouse models for the last 10 years, to our best knowledge, summarizing methods and key parameters presented across the studies. The results imply that a more standardized approach is warranted.

Higher PEEP versus lower PEEP strategies for patients in ICU without acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of high and low levels of PEEP on ICU patients without ARDS.

METHODS

We searched public databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrial.gov). The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

We included 2307 patients from 24 trials. Although no significant difference was found between high and low PEEP applications in in-hospital mortality (risk ratio[RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval[CI] [0.81, 1.19], P = 0.87), high PEEP indeed decreased the incidence of ARDS, hypoxemia, and increased the level of PaO₂/FIO₂. In addition, although the overall results did not reveal any advantages of high PEEP in terms of secondary outcomes regarding 28-day mortality, the duration of ventilation, atelectasis, pulmonary barotrauma, hypotension, and so forth, the subgroup analysis concerning the level of low PEEP (ZEEP or not) and patient type (postoperative or medical ones) yielded different results. The TSA results suggested that more RCTs are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ventilation with high PEEP in ICU patients without ARDS may not reduce in-hospital mortality, the decreased incidences of ARDS and hypoxemia and the improvement in PaO₂/FIO₂ were found in the high PEEP arm.