Combined effects of prone positioning and airway pressure release ventilation on gas exchange in patients with acute lung injury

Knowledge and practice of using airway pressure release ventilation mode in ARDS patients: A survey of physicians

Background

Limited data is available on awareness and clinical management of the airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) mode of ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients among physicians who work at in adult critical areas. This study aimed to assess the knowledge and current practice of using APRV mode with ARDS patients and identify barriers to not using this mode of ventilation among physicians who work in adult critical areas in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

Between November 2022 and April 2023, a cross-sectional online survey was disseminated to physicians who work in adult critical areas in Saudi Arabia. The characteristics of the respondents were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Percentages and frequencies were used to report categorical variables.

Results

Overall, 498 physicians responded to the online survey. All responders (498, 100 %) reported that APRV is indicated in patients with ARDS, but 260 (52.2 %) did not know if there was an institutionally approved APRV protocol. Prone positioning was the highest recommended intervention by 164 (33.0 %) when a conventional MV failed to improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS. 136 (27.3 %) responders stated that the P-high should be set equal to the plateau pressure on a conventional ventilator while 198 (39.8 %) said that P-low should be 0 cmH2O. Almost half of (229, 46.0 %) responders stated that the T-high should be set between 4 and 6 s, while 286 (57.4 %) said that the T-low should be set at 0.4-0.8 s. The maximum allowed tidal volume during the release phase should be 4-6 ml/kg. Moreover, just over half (257, 51.6 %) believed that the maximum allowed P-high setting should be 35 cmH2O. One third of the responders (171, 34.3 %) stated that when weaning patients with ARDS while in APRV mode, the P-high should be reduced gradually to reach a target of 10 cmH2O. However, 284 (36.9 %) thought that the T-high should be gradually increased to reach a target of 10 s. Most responders (331, 66.5 %) felt that the criteria to switch the patient to CPAP would be to have an FiO2 ≤ 0.4, P-high ≤10 cm H2O, and T-high ≥10 s. Lack of training has been the most common barrier to not using APRV by 388 (77.9 %).

Conclusion

There is a lack of consensus on the use of APRV mode, probably due to several barriers. While there were some agreements on the management of ventilation and oxygenation, there were variations in the selection of the initial setting of APRV. Education, training, and the presence of standardized protocols may help to provide better management.

Awake prone positioning in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure

Awake prone positioning (APP) of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure gained considerable attention during the early phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, reports of APP were limited to case series in patients with influenza and in immunocompromised patients, with encouraging results in terms of tolerance and oxygenation improvement. Prone positioning of awake patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure appears to result in many of the same physiological changes improving oxygenation seen in invasively ventilated patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. A number of randomised controlled studies published on patients with varying severity of COVID-19 have reported apparently contrasting outcomes. However, there is consistent evidence that more hypoxaemic patients requiring advanced respiratory support, who are managed in higher care environments and who can be prone for several hours, benefit most from APP use. We review the physiological basis by which prone positioning results in changes in lung mechanics and gas exchange and summarise the latest evidence base for APP primarily in COVID-19. We examine the key factors that influence the success of APP, the optimal target populations for APP and the key unknowns that will shape future research.

Combined Effects of Prone Positioning and Airway Pressure Release Ventilation on Oxygenation in Patients with COVID-19 ARDS

Objective

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) support and prone positioning are essential treatments for severe COVID-19 ARDS. We aimed to determine the combined effect of prone position and airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) modes on oxygen improvement in mechanically-ventilated patients with COVID-19.

Methods

This prospective observational study included 40 eligible patients (13 female, 27 male). Of 40 patients, 23 (57.5%) were ventilated with APRV and 17 (42.5%) were ventilated with controlled modes. A prone position was applied when the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio <150 mmHg despite IMV in COVID-19 ARDS. The numbers of patients who completed the first, second, and third prone were 40, 25, and 15, respectively. Incident barotrauma events were diagnosed by both clinical findings and radiological images.

Results

After the second prone, the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of the APRV group was higher compared to the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of the control group [189 (150-237)] vs. 127 (100-146) mmHg, respectively, (P=0.025). Similarly, after the third prone, the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of the APRV group was higher compared to the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of the control group [194 (132-263)] vs. 83 (71-136) mmHg, respectively, (P=0.021). Barotrauma events were detected in 13.0% of the patients in the APRV group and 11.8% of the patients in the control group (P=1000). The 28-day mortality was not different in the APRV group than in the control group (73.9% vs. 70.6%, respectively, P=1000).

Conclusion

Using the APRV mode during prone positioning improves oxygenation, especially in the second and third prone positions, without increasing the risk of barotrauma. However, no benefit on mortality was detected.

Development of a Standardized Clinical Assessment and Management Plan for Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS) is one of the most challenging patient populations for a clinician to manage with mortality between 8 and 31%. The project was designed to identify patients with PARDS, implement management guidelines with the goal of standardizing practice. Our objectives were to describe the development and implementation of a protocolized approach to identify patients with PARDS and institute ventilator management guidelines. Patients who met criteria for moderate or severe PARDS as per the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (PALICC) definitions were identified using the best practice alert (BPA) in the electronic health record (EHR). Patients who did not meet exclusion criteria qualified for management using the Standardized Clinical Assessment and Management Plan (SCAMP), a quality improvement (QI) methodology with iterative cycles. The creation of a BPA enabled identification of patients with PARDS. With our second cycle, the number of false BPA alerts due to incorrect data decreased from 66.7 (68/102) to 29.2% (19/65; p < 0.001) and enrollment increased from 48.3 (14/29) to 73.2% (30/41; p = 0.03). Evaluation of our statistical process control chart (SPC) demonstrated a shift in the adherence with the tidal volume guideline. Overall, we found that SCAMP methodology, when used in the development of institutional PARDS management guidelines, allows for development of a process to aid identification of patients and monitor adherence to management guidelines. This should eventually allow assessment of impact of deviations from clinical practice guidelines.

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.

ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021

Background

The joint committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Japanese Respiratory Society/Japanese Society of Respiratory Care Medicine on ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline has created and released the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021.

Methods

The 2016 edition of the Clinical Practice Guideline covered clinical questions (CQs) that targeted only adults, but the present guideline includes 15 CQs for children in addition to 46 CQs for adults. As with the previous edition, we used a systematic review method with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system as well as a degree of recommendation determination method. We also conducted systematic reviews that used meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy and network meta-analyses as a new method.

Results

Recommendations for adult patients with ARDS are described: we suggest against using serum C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels to identify bacterial pneumonia as the underlying disease (GRADE 2D); we recommend limiting tidal volume to 4–8 mL/kg for mechanical ventilation (GRADE 1D); we recommend against managements targeting an excessively low SpO₂ (PaO₂) (GRADE 2D); we suggest against using transpulmonary pressure as a routine basis in positive end-expiratory pressure settings (GRADE 2B); we suggest implementing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for those with severe ARDS (GRADE 2B); we suggest against using high-dose steroids (GRADE 2C); and we recommend using low-dose steroids (GRADE 1B). The recommendations for pediatric patients with ARDS are as follows: we suggest against using non-invasive respiratory support (non-invasive positive pressure ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy) (GRADE 2D), we suggest placing pediatric patients with moderate ARDS in the prone position (GRADE 2D), we suggest against routinely implementing NO inhalation therapy (GRADE 2C), and we suggest against implementing daily sedation interruption for pediatric patients with respiratory failure (GRADE 2D).

Conclusions

This article is a translated summary of the full version of the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021 published in Japanese (URL: https://www.jsicm.org/publication/guideline.html). The original text, which was written for Japanese healthcare professionals, may include different perspectives from healthcare professionals of other countries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40560-022-00615-6.

ARDS clinical practice guideline 2021

BACKGROUND

The joint committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Japanese Respiratory Society/Japanese Society of Respiratory Care Medicine on ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline has created and released the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021.

METHODS

The 2016 edition of the Clinical Practice Guideline covered clinical questions (CQs) that targeted only adults, but the present guideline includes 15 CQs for children in addition to 46 CQs for adults. As with the previous edition, we used a systematic review method with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system as well as a degree of recommendation determination method. We also conducted systematic reviews that used meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy and network meta-analyses as a new method.

RESULTS

Recommendations for adult patients with ARDS are described: we suggest against using serum C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels to identify bacterial pneumonia as the underlying disease (GRADE 2D); we recommend limiting tidal volume to 4-8 mL/kg for mechanical ventilation (GRADE 1D); we recommend against managements targeting an excessively low SpO₂ (PaO₂) (GRADE 2D); we suggest against using transpulmonary pressure as a routine basis in positive end-expiratory pressure settings (GRADE 2B); we suggest implementing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for those with severe ARDS (GRADE 2B); we suggest against using high-dose steroids (GRADE 2C); and we recommend using low-dose steroids (GRADE 1B). The recommendations for pediatric patients with ARDS are as follows: we suggest against using non-invasive respiratory support (non-invasive positive pressure ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy) (GRADE 2D); we suggest placing pediatric patients with moderate ARDS in the prone position (GRADE 2D); we suggest against routinely implementing NO inhalation therapy (GRADE 2C); and we suggest against implementing daily sedation interruption for pediatric patients with respiratory failure (GRADE 2D).

CONCLUSIONS

This article is a translated summary of the full version of the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021 published in Japanese (URL: https://www.jrs.or.jp/publication/jrs_guidelines/). The original text, which was written for Japanese healthcare professionals, may include different perspectives from healthcare professionals of other countries.

The Impact of Sample Size Misestimations on the Interpretation of ARDS Trials: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Indeterminate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in ARDS may arise from sample size misspecification, leading to abandonment of efficacious therapies.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

If evidence exists for sample size misspecification in ARDS RCTs, has this led to rejection of potentially beneficial therapies? Does evidence exist for prognostic enrichment in RCTs using mortality as a primary outcome?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We identified 150 ARDS RCTs commencing recruitment after the 1994 American European Consensus Conference ARDS definition and published before October 31, 2020. We examined predicted-observed sample size, predicted-observed control event rate (CER), predicted-observed average treatment effect (ATE), and the relationship between observed CER and observed ATE for RCTs with mortality and nonmortality primary outcome measures. To quantify the strength of evidence, we used Bayesian-averaged meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and Bayes factors.

RESULTS

Only 84 of 150 RCTs (56.0%) reported sample size estimations. In RCTs with mortality as the primary outcome, CER was overestimated in 16 of 28 RCTs (57.1%). To achieve predicted ATE, interventions needed to prevent 40.8% of all deaths, compared with the original prediction of 29.3%. Absolute reduction in mortality ≥ 10% was observed in 5 of 28 RCTs (17.9%), but predicted in 21 of 28 RCTs (75%). For RCTs with mortality as the primary outcome, no association was found between observed CER and observed ATE (pooled OR: β = -0.04; 95% credible interval, -0.18 to 0.09). We identified three interventions that are not currently standard of care with a Bayesian-averaged effect size of > 0.20 and moderate strength of existing evidence: corticosteroids, airway pressure release ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

INTERPRETATION

Reporting of sample size estimations was inconsistent in ARDS RCTs, and misspecification of CER and ATE was common. Prognostic enrichment strategies in ARDS RCTs based on all-cause mortality are unlikely to be successful. Bayesian methods can be used to prioritize interventions for future effectiveness RCTs.

Does airway pressure release ventilation offer new hope for treating acute respiratory distress syndrome?

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is an essential life support method for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is one of the most common critical illnesses with high mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). A lung-protective ventilation strategy based on low tidal volume (LTV) has been recommended since a few years; however, as this did not result in a significant decrease of ARDS-related mortality, a more optimal ventilation mode was required. Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is an old method defined as a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with a brief intermittent release phase based on the open lung concept; it also perfectly fits the ARDS treatment principle. Despite this, APRV has not been widely used in the past, rather only as a rescue measure for ARDS patients who are difficult to oxygenate. Over recent years, with an increased understanding of the pathophysiology of ARDS, APRV has been reproposed to improve patient prognosis. Nevertheless, this mode is still not routinely used in ARDS patients given its vague definition and complexity. Consequently, in this paper, we summarize the studies that used APRV in ARDS, including adults, children, and animals, to illustrate the settings of parameters, effectiveness in the population, safety (especially in children), incidence, and mechanism of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and effects on extrapulmonary organs. Finally, we found that APRV is likely associated with improvement in ARDS outcomes, and does not increase injury to the lungs and other organs, thereby indicating that personalized APRV settings may be the new hope for ARDS treatment.

Impact of differences in acute respiratory distress syndrome randomised controlled trial inclusion and exclusion criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Control-arm mortality varies between acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) RCTs.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed ARDS RCTs that commenced recruitment after publication of the American-European Consensus (AECC) definition (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials; January 1994 to October 2020). We assessed concordance of RCT inclusion criteria to ARDS consensus definitions and whether exclusion criteria are strongly or poorly justified. We estimated the proportion of between-trial difference in control-arm 28-day mortality explained by the inclusion criteria and RCT design characteristics using meta-regression.

RESULTS

A literature search identified 43 709 records. One hundred and fifty ARDS RCTs were included; 146/150 (97.3%) RCTs defined ARDS inclusion criteria using AECC/Berlin definitions. Deviations from consensus definitions, primarily aimed at improving ARDS diagnostic certainty, frequently related to duration of hypoxaemia (117/146; 80.1%). Exclusion criteria could be grouped by rationale for selection into strongly or poorly justified criteria. Common poorly justified exclusions included pregnancy related, age, and comorbidities (infectious/immunosuppression, hepatic, renal, and human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Control-arm 28-day mortality varied between ARDS RCTs (mean: 29.8% [95% confidence interval: 27.0-32.7%; I²=88.8%; τ²=0.02; P<0.01]), and differed significantly between RCTs with different Pao₂:FiO₂ ratio inclusion thresholds (26.6-39.9 kPa vs <26.6 kPa; P<0.01). In a meta-regression model, inclusion criteria and RCT design characteristics accounted for 30.6% of between-trial difference (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In most ARDS RCTs, consensus definitions are modified to use as inclusion criteria. Between-RCT mortality differences are mostly explained by the Pao₂:FiO₂ ratio threshold within the consensus definitions. An exclusion criteria framework can be applied when designing and reporting exclusion criteria in future ARDS RCTs.

The effect of preemptive airway pressure release ventilation on patients with high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

Background and objectives

The objective of this study was to investigate the use of early APRV mode as a lung protective strategy compared to conventional methods with regard to ARDS development.

Methods

The study was designed as a randomized, non-blinded, single-center, superiority trial with two parallel groups and a primary endpoint of ARDS development. Patients under invasive mechanical ventilation who were not diagnosed with ARDS and had Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than 7 were included in the study. The patients were assigned to APRV and P-SIMV + PS mode groups.

Results

Patients were treated with P-SIMV+PS or APRV mode; 33 (50.8%) and 32 (49.2%), respectively. The P/F ratio values were higher in the APRV group on day 3 (p = 0.032). The fraction of inspired oxygen value was lower in the APRV group at day 7 (p = 0.011).While 5 of the 33 patients (15.2%) in the P-SIMV+PS group developed ARDS, one out of the 32 patients (3.1%) in the APRV group developed ARDS during follow-up (p = 0.197). The groups didn’t differ in terms of vasopressor/inotrope requirement, successful extubation rates, and/or mortality rates (p = 1.000, p = 0.911, p = 0.705, respectively). Duration of intensive care unit stay was 8 (2–11) days in the APRV group and 13 (8–81) days in the P-SIMV+PS group (p = 0.019).

Conclusions

The APRV mode can be used safely in selected groups of surgical and medical patients while preserving spontaneous respiration to a make benefit of its lung-protective effects. In comparison to the conventional mode, it is associated with improved oxygenation, higher mean airway pressures, and shorter intensive care unit stay. However, it does not reduce the sedation requirement, ARDS development, or mortality.

Acute respiratory failure and burn patient outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in the care of inhalational injuries have not kept pace with advances that have been seen in the treatment of cutaneous burns. There is not yet a standard of care for best outcomes for airway management of patients with known or suspected inhalational injuries. Clinicians must decide if to intubate the patient, and if so, whether to intubate early or late in their presentation. Unnecessary intubation affects morbidity and mortality. This review will summarize literature that highlights present practices in the treatment of patients with inhalation injuries.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been promising investigations into biomarkers that can be used to quantify a patient's risk and better target therapies. Grading systems serve to better stratify the burn victim's prognosis and then direct their care. Special ventilator modes can assist in ventilating burn patients with inhalation injuries that experience difficulties in oxygenating.

SUMMARY

Inhalational injuries are a significant source of morbidity and mortality in thermally injured patients. Treatment modalities, such as modified ventilator settings, alteration in fluid resuscitation, and a standardized grading system may improve morbidity and mortality.

[Specific treatment of acute lung failure]

Wegen der hohen Heterogenität und Dynamik des Krankheitsverlaufes stellt die Behandlung des akuten Lungenversagens Intensivmediziner vor außerordentliche Herausforderungen. Nachdem die aktuelle Definition, Pathophysiologie und die Differenzialdiagnosen in der vorliegenden Zeitschrift bereits dargestellt wurden, werden im Folgenden Möglichkeiten der spezifischen und individualisierten Therapie behandelt. Die Beatmungstherapie mit Limitierung der Tidalvolumina und Druckamplitude zeigt einen Vorteil hinsichtlich der Letalität, ist aber aufgrund der vielfältigen Ätiologie des akuten Lungenversagens im Kontext mit den unterschiedlichen Gegebenheiten individuell anzupassen. In den letzten Jahren wurde die Bedeutung der Bauchlage, der möglichst frühzeitigen Spontanatmung und der Frühmobilisation für den positiven Krankheitsverlauf erkannt. Eine individualisierte Therapie sollte die Besonderheiten des Patienten und den spezifischen Krankheitsverlauf berücksichtigen.

Airway Pressure Release Ventilation as a Rescue Therapy in Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

To describe experience with airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) in children with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) refractory to conventional low tidal volume ventilation.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study was performed in an 11-bed, level 3 pediatric intensive care unit. Evaluation was made of 30 pediatric patients receiving airway pressure release ventilation as rescue therapy for severe ARDS.

RESULTS

Patients were switched to APRV on an average 3.2 ± 2.6 d following intubation. When changed from conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) to APRV, there was an expected increase in the SpO₂/FiO₂ ratio (165.1 ± 13.6 vs. 131.7 ± 10.2; p = 0.035). Mean peak inspiratory pressure was significantly lower during APRV (25.4 ± 1.26 vs. 29.8 ± 0.60, p < 0.001) compared to CMV prior to APRV but mean airway pressure (P_aw) was significantly higher during APRV (19.1 ± 0.9 vs. 15.3 ± 1.3, p < 0.001). Hospital mortality in this study group was 16.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support the hypothesis that APRV may offer potential clinical advantages for ventilatory management and may be considered as an alternative rescue mechanical ventilation mode in pediatric ARDS patients refractory to conventional ventilation.

Airway Pressure Release Ventilation Combined With Prone Positioning in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Old Tricks New Synergy: A Case Series

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) shares several overlapping mechanisms with prone positioning in improving ventilation-perfusion mismatch in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the combination of APRV and prone positioning is seldom performed because assist/controlled ventilation remains the mainstay ventilatory mode. We describe 5 cases of severe ARDS where APRV and prone positioning were applied. All patients' partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2):inspired oxygen concentration (FiO2) ratios improved after treatment, and 3 patients were extubated within 72 hours of turning supine. In our experience, APRV can be safely used in the prone position in a select subgroup of ARDS patients with resulting significant oxygenation improvement.

Airway Pressure Release Ventilation: A Review of the Evidence, Theoretical Benefits, and Alternative Titration Strategies

Objective:

To review the theoretical benefits of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV), summarize the evidence for its use in clinical practice, and discuss different titration strategies.

Data Source:

Published randomized controlled trials in humans, observational human studies, animal studies, review articles, ventilator textbooks, and editorials.

Data Summary:

Airway pressure release ventilation optimizes alveolar recruitment, reduces airway pressures, allows for spontaneous breathing, and offers many hemodynamic benefits. Despite these physiologic advantages, there are inconsistent data to support the use of APRV over other modes of ventilation. There is considerable heterogeneity in the application of APRV among providers and a shortage of information describing initiation and titration strategies. To date, no direct comparison studies of APRV strategies have been performed. This review describes 2 common management approaches that bedside providers can use to optimally tailor APRV to their patients.

Conclusion:

Airway pressure release ventilation remains a form of mechanical ventilation primarily used for refractory hypoxemia. It offers unique physiological advantages over other ventilatory modes, and providers must be familiar with different titration methods. Given its inconsistent outcome data and heterogeneous use in practice, future trials should directly compare APRV strategies to determine the optimal management approach.

A comprehensive review of the use and understanding of airway pressure release ventilation

Introduction: Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a mode of ventilation typically utilized as a rescue or alternative mode for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and hypoxemia that is refractory to conventional mechanical ventilation. APRV's indication and efficacy continue to remain unclear given lack of consensus amongst practitioners, inconsistent methodology for its use, and scarcity of convincing evidence.Areas covered: This review discusses the history of APRV, how APRV works, rationales for its use, and its theoretical advantages and disadvantages. This is followed by a review of current available literature examining APRV's use in the intensive care unit, with further focus on its use in the pediatric intensive care unit.Expert opinion: APRV is a ventilation mode with theoretical risks and benefits. Appropriate study of APRV's clinical efficacy is difficult given a heterogeneous patient population and widely variable use of APRV between centers. Despite a paucity of definitive evidence in support of either mode, it is possible that the use of APRV will begin to outpace the use of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) for the management of refractory hypoxemia as more attention is paid to benefits of spontaneous breathing and minimizing sedation. Furthermore, APRV's role during ECMO deserves further investigation.

The safety and efficacy of airway pressure release ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a critical illness with high mortality and a worse prognosis. Mechanical ventilation (MV) is currently considered to be one of the most effective methods of treating ARDS. In this meta-analysis, we discussed the efficacy of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) in treating ARDS.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), Ovid Medline, Embase, and PubMed were systematically searched with the keywords of "ARDS" and "APRV". The studies containing the treatment of APRV in ARDS were included. According to the MV protocol used in the studies, the comparison was undertaken between the APRV group vs low tidal volume (LTV) group and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) group. The relative risk (RR) and the standard mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for the comparison between groups.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 2096 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The average increasing rate of PaO2/FiO2 was 75.4% in the APRV group vs 44.1% in the non-APRV group. No significant differences were found in mortality and duration of ICU stay between APRV vs LTV (P = .073 and P = .404) and APRV vs SIMV (P = .370 and P = .894).

CONCLUSION

The APRV protocol would have a higher increase in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, which was a safe protocol with a compatible effect comparing to LTV and SIMV.

Randomized Feasibility Trial of a Low Tidal Volume-Airway Pressure Release Ventilation Protocol Compared With Traditional Airway Pressure Release Ventilation and Volume Control Ventilation Protocols

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

Low tidal volume (= tidal volume ≤ 6 mL/kg, predicted body weight) ventilation using volume control benefits patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway pressure release ventilation is an alternative to low tidal volume-volume control ventilation, but the release breaths generated are variable and can exceed tidal volume breaths of low tidal volume-volume control. We evaluate the application of a low tidal volume-compatible airway pressure release ventilation protocol that manages release volumes on both clinical and feasibility endpoints.

Design:

We designed a prospective randomized trial in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We randomized patients to low tidal volume-volume control, low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation, and traditional airway pressure release ventilation with a planned enrollment of 246 patients. The study was stopped early because of low enrollment and inability to consistently achieve tidal volumes less than 6.5 mL/kg in the low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation arm. Although the primary clinical study endpoint was Pao₂/Fio₂ on study day 3, we highlight the feasibility outcomes related to tidal volumes in both arms.

Setting:

Four Intermountain Healthcare tertiary ICUs.

Patients:

Adult ICU patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Interventions:

Low tidal volume-volume control, airway pressure release ventilation, and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation.

Measurements and Main Results:

We observed wide variability and higher tidal (release for airway pressure release ventilation) volumes in both airway pressure release ventilation (8.6 mL/kg; 95% CI, 7.8–9.6) and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (8.0; 95% CI, 7.3–8.9) than volume control (6.8; 95% CI, 6.2–7.5; p = 0.005) with no difference between airway pressure release ventilation and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (p = 0.58). Recognizing the limitations of small sample size, we observed no difference in 52 patients in day 3 Pao₂/ Fio₂ (p = 0.92). We also observed no significant difference between arms in sedation, vasoactive medications, or occurrence of pneumothorax.

Conclusions:

Airway pressure release ventilation resulted in release volumes often exceeding 12 mL/kg despite a protocol designed to target low tidal volume ventilation. Current airway pressure release ventilation protocols are unable to achieve consistent and reproducible delivery of low tidal volume ventilation goals. A large-scale efficacy trial of low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation is not feasible at this time in the absence of an explicit, generalizable, and reproducible low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation protocol.

Optimal Ventilator Strategies in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Mechanical ventilation practices in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have progressed with a growing understanding of the disease pathophysiology. Paramount to the care of affected patients is the delivery of lung-protective mechanical ventilation which prioritizes tidal volume and plateau pressure limitation. Lung protection can probably be further enhanced by scaling target tidal volumes to the specific respiratory mechanics of individual patients. The best procedure for selecting optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS remains uncertain; several relevant issues must be considered when selecting PEEP, particularly lung recruitability. Noninvasive ventilation must be used with caution in ARDS as excessively high respiratory drive can further exacerbate lung injury; newer modes of delivery offer promising approaches in hypoxemic respiratory failure. Airway pressure release ventilation offers an alternative approach to maximize lung recruitment and oxygenation, but clinical trials have not demonstrated a survival benefit of this mode over conventional ventilation strategies. Rescue therapy with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation is an important option in refractory hypoxemia. Despite a disappointing lack of benefit (and possible harm) in patients with moderate or severe ARDS, possibly due to lung hyperdistention and right ventricular dysfunction, high-frequency oscillation may improve outcome in patients with very severe hypoxemia.

Complications and Pharmacologic Interventions of Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation During Critical Illness

Objective: To review the fundamentals of invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) and the common complications and associated pharmacotherapeutic management in order to provide opportunities for pharmacists to improve patient outcomes. Data Sources: A MEDLINE literature search (1950-December 2017) was performed using the key search terms invasive positive pressure ventilation, mechanical ventilation, pharmacist, respiratory failure, ventilator associated organ dysfunction, ventilator associated pneumonia, ventilator bundles, and ventilator liberation. Additional references were identified from a review of literature citations. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All English-language original research and review reports were evaluated. Data Synthesis: IPPV is a common supportive care measure for critically ill patients. While lifesaving, IPPV is associated with significant complications including ventilator-associated pneumonia, sinusitis, organ dysfunction, and hemodynamic alterations. Optimization of pain and sedation management provides an opportunity for pharmacists to directly affect IPPV exposure. A number of pharmacotherapeutic interventions are related directly to prophylaxis against IPPV-associated adverse events or aimed at reduction of duration of IPPV. Conclusions: Enhanced knowledge of the common complications, associated pharmacotherapy, and monitoring strategies facilitate the pharmacist's ability to provide increased pharmacotherapeutic insight in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit setting.

Salvage therapies for refractory hypoxemia in ARDS

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a condition of varied etiology characterized by the acute onset (within 1 week of the inciting event) of hypoxemia, reduced lung compliance, diffuse lung inflammation and bilateral opacities on chest imaging attributable to noncardiogenic (increased permeability) pulmonary edema. Although multi-organ failure is the most common cause of death in ARDS, an estimated 10-15% of the deaths in ARDS are caused due to refractory hypoxemia, i.e.- hypoxemia despite lung protective conventional ventilator modes. In these cases, clinicians may resort to other measures with less robust evidence -referred to as "salvage therapies". These include proning, 48 h of paralysis early in the course of ARDS, various recruitment maneuvers, unconventional ventilator modes, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, and Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All the salvage therapies described have been associated with improved oxygenation, but with the exception of proning and 48 h of paralysis early in the course of ARDS, none of them have a proven mortality benefit. Based on the current evidence, no salvage therapy has been shown to be superior to the others and each of them is associated with its own risks and benefits. Hence, the order of application of these therapies varies in different institutions and should be applied following a risk-benefit analysis specific to the patient and local experience. This review explores the rationale, evidence, advantages and risks behind each of these strategies.

[Positioning therapy and early mobilization in intensive care units : Findings from the current 2015 guidelines]

The 2007 guidelines "Positioning for prophylaxis and therapy of pulmonary disorders" were completely revised in 2015 on behalf of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. With regard to practical and scientific relevance, early mobilization of patients in critical care has been included in the guidelines for the first time. Furthermore, the recommendations for prone positioning have been updated, based on current evidence in medicine and nursing. In addition, recommendations regarding unsuitable positions that may actually harm patients were made. As such, the flat supine position should only be used in cases of urgent medical or nursing needs. This underlines the importance of a moderately elevated head of bed position (20(o)-45(o)) in mechanically ventilated patients.

The 30-year evolution of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV)

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) was first described in 1987 and defined as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with a brief release while allowing the patient to spontaneously breathe throughout the respiratory cycle. The current understanding of the optimal strategy to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury is to "open the lung and keep it open". APRV should be ideal for this strategy with the prolonged CPAP duration recruiting the lung and the minimal release duration preventing lung collapse. However, APRV is inconsistently defined with significant variation in the settings used in experimental studies and in clinical practice. The goal of this review was to analyze the published literature and determine APRV efficacy as a lung-protective strategy. We reviewed all original articles in which the authors stated that APRV was used. The primary analysis was to correlate APRV settings with physiologic and clinical outcomes. Results showed that there was tremendous variation in settings that were all defined as APRV, particularly CPAP and release phase duration and the parameters used to guide these settings. Thus, it was impossible to assess efficacy of a single strategy since almost none of the APRV settings were identical. Therefore, we divided all APRV studies divided into two basic categories: (1) fixed-setting APRV (F-APRV) in which the release phase is set and left constant; and (2) personalized-APRV (P-APRV) in which the release phase is set based on changes in lung mechanics using the slope of the expiratory flow curve. Results showed that in no study was there a statistically significant worse outcome with APRV, regardless of the settings (F-ARPV or P-APRV). Multiple studies demonstrated that P-APRV stabilizes alveoli and reduces the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in clinically relevant animal models and in trauma patients. In conclusion, over the 30 years since the mode's inception there have been no strict criteria in defining a mechanical breath as being APRV. P-APRV has shown great promise as a highly lung-protective ventilation strategy.

[Short version S2e guidelines: "Positioning therapy and early mobilization for prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary function disorders"]

The German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) commissioned a revision of the S2 guidelines on "positioning therapy for prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary function disorders" from 2008. Because of the increasing clinical and scientific relevance the guidelines were extended to include the issue of "early mobilization" and the following main topics are therefore included: use of positioning therapy and early mobilization for prophylaxis and therapy of pulmonary function disorders, undesired effects and complications of positioning therapy and early mobilization as well as practical aspects of the use of positioning therapy and early mobilization. These guidelines are the result of a systematic literature search and the subsequent critical evaluation of the evidence with scientific methods. The methodological approach for the process of development of the guidelines followed the requirements of evidence-based medicine, as defined as the standard by the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany. Recently published articles after 2005 were examined with respect to positioning therapy and the recently accepted aspect of early mobilization incorporates all literature published up to June 2014.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with airway pressure release ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The optimal mode of ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains uncertain. Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a recognized treatment for mechanically-ventilated patients with severe hypoxaemia. However, contemporary data on its role as a rescue modality in ARDS is lacking. The goal of this study was to describe the clinical and physiological effects of APRV in patients with established ARDS.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study was performed in a 23-bed adult intensive care unit in a tertiary extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) referral centre. Patients with ARDS based on Berlin criteria were included through a prospectively-collected APRV database. Patients receiving APRV for less than six hours were excluded.

RESULTS

Fifty patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Prior to APRV initiation, median Murray Lung Injury Score was 3.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 2.5-3.9) and PaO2/FiO2 was 99mmHg (IQR 73-137). PaO2/FiO2 significantly improved within twenty-four hours post-APRV initiation (ANOVA F(1, 27)=24.34, P<.005). Two patients (4%) required intercostal catheter insertion for barotrauma. Only one patient (2%) required ECMO after APRV initiation, despite a majority (68%) fulfilling previously established criteria for ECMO at baseline. Hospital mortality rate was 38%.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ARDS-related refractory hypoxaemia treated with APRV, an early and sustained improvement in oxygenation, low incidence of clinically significant barotrauma and progression to ECMO was observed. The safety and efficacy of APRV requires further consideration.

S2e guideline: positioning and early mobilisation in prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary disorders : Revision 2015: S2e guideline of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI)

The German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) commissioneda revision of the S2 guidelines on "positioning therapy for prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary function disorders" from 2008. Because of the increasing clinical and scientificrelevance the guidelines were extended to include the issue of "early mobilization"and the following main topics are therefore included: use of positioning therapy and earlymobilization for prophylaxis and therapy of pulmonary function disorders, undesired effects and complications of positioning therapy and early mobilization as well as practical aspects of the use of positioning therapy and early mobilization. These guidelines are the result of a systematic literature search and the subsequent critical evaluation of the evidence with scientific methods. The methodological approach for the process of development of the guidelines followed the requirements of evidence-based medicine, as defined as the standard by the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany. Recently published articles after 2005 were examined with respect to positioning therapy and the recently accepted aspect of early mobilization incorporates all literature published up to June 2014.

Ventilatory support in children with pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome: proceedings from the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference

OBJECTIVE

To describe the recommendations of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference for mechanical ventilation management of pediatric patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

DESIGN

Consensus Conference of experts in pediatric acute lung injury.

METHODS

The Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference experts developed and voted on a total of 27 recommendations focused on the optimal mechanical ventilation approach of the patient with pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome. Topics included ventilator mode, tidal volume delivery, inspiratory plateau pressure, high-frequency ventilation, cuffed endotracheal tubes, and gas exchange goals. When experimental data were lacking, a modified Delphi approach emphasizing the strong professional agreement was used.

RESULTS

There were 17 recommendations with strong agreement and 10 recommendations with weak agreement. There were no recommendations with equipoise or disagreement. There was weak agreement on recommendations concerning approach to tidal volume and inspiratory pressure limitation (88% to 72% agreement, respectively), whereas strong agreement could be achieved for accepting permissive hypercapnia. Using positive end-expiratory pressure levels greater than 15 cm H2O in severe pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome, under the condition that the markers of oxygen delivery, respiratory system compliance, and hemodynamics are closely monitored as positive end-expiratory pressure is increased, is strongly recommended. The concept of exploring the effects of careful recruitment maneuvers during conventional ventilation met an agreement level of 88%, whereas the use of recruitment maneuvers during rescue high-frequency oscillatory ventilation is highly recommended (strong agreement).

CONCLUSIONS

The Consensus Conference developed pediatric-specific recommendations regarding mechanical ventilation of the patient with pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome as well as future research priorities. These recommendations are intended to initiate discussion regarding optimal mechanical ventilation management for children with pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome and identify areas of controversy requiring further investigation.

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.

The use of paralytics in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Interest in the role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been renewed since a recent randomized clinical trial showed a reduction in mortality associated with the use of NMBAs. However, the role of paralytics in a protective mechanical ventilation strategy should be detailed. This review summarizes data in the literature concerning the clinical effects of NMBAs on the outcome of patients with ARDS, in an attempt to explain some pathophysiologic hypotheses concerning their action and to integrate them into the overall management strategy for the mechanical ventilation of ARDS patients.

Airway pressure release ventilation: improving oxygenation: indications, rationale, and adverse events associated with airway pressure release ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome for advance practice nurses

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a mode of ventilation that has been around since the 1980s and was originally viewed as a type of continuous positive pressure mode of ventilation. Conceptually, APRV can be thought of as a type of inverse-ratio, pressure-controlled, intermittent mandatory ventilation during which the maintenance of spontaneous breathing and prolonged application of high mean airway pressure contribute to the clinical benefits. The aim of this review article was to familiarize the bedside clinician working in the intensive care unit with the theory and rationale behind this mode of ventilation. The potential advantages and disadvantages of APRV will also be discussed to empower the advance practice clinician and bedside nurse to advocate for their patient diagnosed with the often-high mortality disease of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Goal-oriented respiratory management for critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

This paper, based on relevant literature articles and the authors' clinical experience, presents a goal-oriented respiratory management for critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that can help improve clinicians' ability to care for these patients. Early recognition of ARDS modified risk factors and avoidance of aggravating factors during hospital stay such as nonprotective mechanical ventilation, multiple blood products transfusions, positive fluid balance, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and gastric aspiration can help decrease its incidence. An early extensive clinical, laboratory, and imaging evaluation of “at risk patients” allows a correct diagnosis of ARDS, assessment of comorbidities, and calculation of prognostic indices, so that a careful treatment can be planned. Rapid administration of antibiotics and resuscitative measures in case of sepsis and septic shock associated with protective ventilatory strategies and early short-term paralysis associated with differential ventilatory techniques (recruitment maneuvers with adequate positive end-expiratory pressure titration, prone position, and new extracorporeal membrane oxygenation techniques) in severe ARDS can help improve its prognosis. Revaluation of ARDS patients on the third day of evolution (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), biomarkers and response to infection therapy) allows changes in the initial treatment plans and can help decrease ARDS mortality.

Partial ventilatory support modalities in acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome-a systematic review

PURPOSE

The efficacy of partial ventilatory support modes that allow spontaneous breathing in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unclear. The objective of this scoping review was to assess the effects of partial ventilatory support on mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and both hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay (LOS) for patients with ALI and ARDS; the secondary objective was to describe physiologic effects on hemodynamics, respiratory system and other organ function.

METHODS

MEDLINE (1966-2009), Cochrane, and EmBase (1980-2009) databases were searched using common ventilator modes as keywords and reference lists from retrieved manuscripts hand searched for additional studies. Two researchers independently reviewed and graded the studies using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine grading system. Studies in adult ALI/ARDS patients were included for primary objectives and pre-clinical studies for supporting evidence.

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, in addition to six prospective cohort studies, one retrospective cohort study, one case control study, 41 clinical physiologic studies and 28 pre-clinical studies. No study was powered to assess mortality, one RCT showed shorter ICU length of stay, and the other demonstrated more ventilator free days. Beneficial effects of preserved spontaneous breathing were mainly physiological effects demonstrated as improvement of gas exchange, hemodynamics and non-pulmonary organ perfusion and function.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of partial ventilatory support modalities is often feasible in patients with ALI/ARDS, and may be associated with short-term physiological benefits without appreciable impact on clinically important outcomes.

Clinical Course of ICU Patients With Severe Pandemic 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Pneumonia

Received June 10, 2010, and in revised form July 26, 2010. Accepted for publication August 12, 2010. Background: A number of different modalities have been employed in addition to conventional ventilation to improve oxygenation in patients with severe 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) pneumonia. Outcomes with ventilatory and rescue therapies for H1N1 influenza-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been varied. 1 – 6 A single intensive care unit (ICU) experience with management of laboratory-confirmed 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) ARDS with a combination of proning and airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is described. Methods: A retrospective review of medical records of ICU patients seen at Utah Valley Regional Medical Center during the first and second waves of the H1N1 influenza pandemic was done. Results: Fourteen ICU patients were managed with invasive ventilation for 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1)-related ARDS. Hypoxemia refractory to conventional ventilation was noted in 11 of 14 patients despite application of APRV. Following proning in patients on APRV, improvement of hypoxemia and hemodynamic status was achieved. Only 2 of 11 patients on APRV and proning required continuous dialysis. Mortality in intubated patients receiving a combination of proning and APRV was 27.3% (3/11) with 2 of these dying during the first wave of the H1N1 influenza pandemic. In all, 3 of 11 patients on proning and APRV underwent tracheostomy, with 2 of these undergoing tube thoracostomy. ARDSnet fluid-conservative protocol was safely tolerated in 8 of 11 of the intubated patients following initiation of proning and APRV. Conclusions: Proning in combination with APRV provides improvement of hypoxemia with limitation of end-organ dysfunction and thereby facilitates recovery from severe 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1).

What's new in critical care of the burn-injured patient?

The number of cases of mortality after burn injury continues to decline, in part because of advances in respiratory, fluid, and sepsis management. However, care needs to be exercised in the application of these new techniques and technologies, many of which have never been assessed or have been incompletely studied in patients who have burn injury. Use of any of these advances in critical care needs to be individualized for any given patient and altered based on the patient's response to therapy. Future advances in the critical care of burns will require multicenter prospective trials at dedicated burn centers to define the optimal therapy for the patient who has burn injury.

Pathophysiology, management and treatment of smoke inhalation injury

Smoke inhalation injury continues to increase morbidity and mortality in burn patients in both the third world and industrialized countries. The lack of uniform criteria for the diagnosis and definition of smoke inhalation injury contributes to the fact that, despite extensive research, mortality rates have changed little in recent decades. The formation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, as well as the procoagulant and antifibrinolytic imbalance of alveolar homeostasis, all play a central role in the pathogenesis of smoke inhalation injury. Further hallmarks include massive airway obstruction owing to cast formation, bronchospasm, the increase in bronchial circulation and transvascular fluid flux. Therefore, anticoagulants, antioxidants and bronchodilators, especially when administered as an aerosol, represent the most promising treatment strategies. The purpose of this review article is to provide an overview of the pathophysiological changes, management and treatment options of smoke inhalation injury based on the current literature.