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

Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (RAM Cannula) With T-piece Resuscitator to Deliver Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) During Neonatal Transport

Background Newborns frequently experience respiratory distress (RD), necessitating preventive management during transportation. The use of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) is crucial in mitigating RD in neonates, particularly during transit. This study aims to assess the feasibility and efficacy of utilizing a RAM cannula (Neotech Products, Valencia, USA) with a T-piece resuscitator to deliver CPAP during neonatal transport. The objective is to evaluate the response of transported neonates to this intervention, including improvements in distress, surfactant requirements, ventilator dependency, and complications. Method and material Neonates with RD qualifying for CPAP support at birth and requiring transport to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) care were included. The average duration of transport was 38 minutes (range 12 minutes to 2 hours). RAM cannula with a T-piece resuscitator was used for CPAP delivery during transportation. Vital parameters and interventions were monitored during transit, and outcomes were compared with inborn neonates receiving standard CPAP in the labor room. Results Out of 48 babies, nine babies required surfactant, and four needed invasive ventilation, with three developing a nasal injury. Compared to in-house preterm babies, these babies had more Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) knob adjustment, desaturation episodes, late surfactant administration, and intubation needs. Conclusion A high-flow nasal cannula combined with a T-piece resuscitator emerges as a promising modality for CPAP delivery during neonatal transportation, demonstrating efficacy with minimal complications.

Comparison of ventilation techniques for compensation of mask leakage using a ventilator and a regular full-face mask: A bench study

Background

The use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) during and after extubation is common. We designed this study to determine the optimal strategy to compensate for mask leaks and achieve effective ventilation during NIV by comparing commonly used operating room ventilator systems and a regular facemask.

Methods

We tested four operating room ventilator systems (Dägger Zeus, Dägger Apollo, Dägger Fabius Tiro, and General Electric Healthcare Carestation 650) on a lung model with normal compliance and airway resistance and evaluated pressure control ventilation (PCV), volume control ventilation (VCV), and AutoFlow mode (VAF). We set the O2 flow at 10 L/min and the maximal flow at 13, 16, or 26 L/min. We simulated five leak levels, from no leak to over 40 L/min (I to V levels), using customized T-pieces placed between the lung model and the breathing circuit. We recorded the expired tidal volume (Vte) from the lung model and peak inspiratory pressure via two flow/pressure sensors that were placed distally and proximally to the T-pieces.

Results

1. Comparison of four ventilators: with any given ventilation mode, an increase in leak level caused a decrease in Vte. With PCV, only Zeus produced Vte larger than 150 ml at leak level V. 2. Effect of ventilation mode on Vte: across all four ventilators, PCV resulted in a higher Vte than VCV and VAF (P < 0.01). PCV mode with all ventilators at leak level II provided Vte values that were equal to or greater than those obtained with no leak. 3. Effect of O2 flow on Vte Using PCV mode: only Carestation 650 Vte at leak level II during PCV were significantly greater with 16 L/min O2 flow compared with 10 L/min O2 flow (P < 0.01). 4. Actual leak: increasing the O2 flow from 10 L/min to the maximum O2 flow dramatically increased the real leak with all 4 ventilators at any fixed leak level (P < 0.01). 5. Preset PIP vs. actual PIP with PCV: at low preset PIP and leak levels such as leak II and III, the discrepancy between preset PIP and actual PIP was small. The disparity between the preset and actual PIP grew when the target PIP and the leak level were raised.

Conclusion

For NIV using a mask, the ventilator is preferred whose Pressure generator is Turbine, the PCV mode is preferred in the ventilation mode and the oxygen flow is set to 10 L/min or maximum oxygen flow.

Lung ultrasound-guided PEEP titration in COVID-19 patients treated with CPAP

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of COVID-19 patients were treated with continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP). To evaluate the clinical effects of personalized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) compared to standard fixed PEEP in COVID-19 patients requiring CPAP.

METHODS

This is a single center, prospective, randomized clinical study. Sixty-three COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and bilateral pneumonia were randomized in two Groups: Group A received CPAP with fixed PEEP of 10 cm H2O, Group B performed the "PEEP trial", that consists in the evaluation of best PEEP defined as the PEEP value that precedes the echographic appearance of "lung pulse" determining a PaO2/FiO2 increase. Primary outcome was composite in-hospital mortality + intubation, secondary outcome was the percentage increase of PaO2/FiO2. As safety indicator, the incidence of pneumothorax was collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were enrolled in Group A and 31 in Group B. The two groups were comparable for clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters. The primary outcome occurred in 36 (57.1 %) patients: 23 (71.8 %) in Group A and 13 (41.9 %) in Group B (p<0.01). Mortality was higher in Group A (53.1 vs. 19.3 %, p<0.01), while intubation rate was comparable between groups. Group B showed a higher PaO2/FiO2 increase than Group A (34.9 vs. 13.1 %, p<0.01). Five cases of pneumothorax were reported in Group A, none in Group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung ultrasound-guided PEEP trial is associated with lower mortality in COVID-19 patients treated with CPAP. Identifying the best PEEP is useful to increase oxygenation and reduce the incidence of complications.

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.

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.

Differential Prognostic Analysis of Higher and Lower PEEP in ARDS Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) refers to the positive pressure in the respiratory tract at the end of the exhalation when we use a ventilator. The differences of higher PEEP and lower PEEP on clinical outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients are less well known.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of all randomized control trials (RCTs) was conducted using PubMed, Embase, World Health Organization (WHO) Global Index Medicus, WHO clinical trial registry, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Inclusion criteria included RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes of higher and lower PEEP in ARDS patients.

Results

Eleven studies were included in the final analysis. In the higher PEEP group, the hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, and ICU mortality showed no significantly lower risk compared to the lower PEEP group (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.80-1.05, p = 0.22; RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.73-1.05, p = 0.15; RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.05, p = 0.12; respectively). High certainty could be obtained that there is no significant difference between the clinical outcomes of higher PEEP and lower PEEP in ARDS patients.

Conclusions

There is no significant difference of the hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, and ICU mortality between higher and lower PEEP in ARDS patients.

Association of PEEP and Lung Recruitment Selection Strategies with Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

RATIONALE

The most beneficial positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection strategy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown and current practice is variable.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative effects of different PEEP selection strategies on mortality in adults with moderate to severe ARDS.

METHODS

We conducted a network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

We included 18 randomized trials (4646 participants). In comparison to a lower PEEP strategy, the posterior probability of mortality benefit from a higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) strategy was 99% (RR 0.77, 95% Crl 0.60-0.96, high certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of the Pes-guided strategy was 87% (RR 0.77, 95% CrI 0.48-1.22, moderate certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of a higher PEEP with brief LRM strategy was 96% (RR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.67-1.02, moderate certainty), and the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 77% (RR 1.06, 95% Crl 0.89-1.22, low certainty). In comparison to a higher PEEP without LRM strategy, the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 99% (RR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.04-1.81, moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, higher PEEP without LRM is associated with a lower risk of death as compared to lower PEEP. A higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy is associated with increased risk of death when compared to higher PEEP without LRM.

OLA strategy for ARDS: Its effect on mortality depends on achieved recruitment (PaO2/FiO2) and mechanical power. Systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression

OBJECTIVE

The "Open Lung Approach" (OLA), that includes high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure coupled with limited tidal volumes, is considered optimal for adult patients with ARDS. However, many previous meta-analyses have shown only marginal benefits of OLA on mortality but with statistical heterogeneity. It is crucial to identify the most likely moderators of this effect. To determine the effect of OLA strategy on mortality of ventilated ARDS patients. We hypothesized that the degree of recruitment achieved in the control group (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio on day 3 of ventilation), and the difference in Mechanical Power (MP) or Driving Pressure (DP) between experimental and control groups will be the most likely sources of heterogeneity.

DESIGN

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO database. We searched only for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). GRADE guidelines were used for rating the quality of evidence. Publication bias was assessed. For the Meta-analysis, we used a Random Effects Model. Sources of heterogeneity were explored with Meta-Regression, using a priori proposed set of possible moderators. For model comparison, Akaike's Information Criterion with the finite sample correction (AICc) was used.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENTS

Fourteen RCTs were included in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Not applicable.

RESULTS

Evidence of publication bias was detected, and quality of evidence was downgraded. Pooled analysis did not show a significant difference in the 28-day mortality between OLA strategy and control groups. Overall risk of bias was low. The analysis detected statistical heterogeneity. The two "best" explicative meta-regression models were those that used control PaO₂/FiO₂ on day 3 and difference in MP between experimental and control groups. The DP and MP models were highly correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear benefit of OLA strategy on mortality of ARDS patients, with significant heterogeneity among RCTs. Mortality effect of OLA is mediated by lung recruitment and mechanical power.

Electrical Impedance Tomography Analysis Between Two Similar Respiratory System Compliance During Decremetal PEEP Titration in ARDS Patients

Purpose

The positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level with best respiratory system compliance (Crs) is frequently used for PEEP selection in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. On occasion, two similar best Crs (where the difference between the Crs of two PEEP levels is < 1 ml/cm H₂O) may be identified during decremental PEEP titration. Selecting PEEP under such conditions is challenging. The aim of this study was to provide supplementary rationale for PEEP selection by assessing the global and regional ventilation distributions between two PEEP levels in this situation.

Methods

Eight ARDS cases with similar best Crs at two different PEEP levels were analyzed using examination-specific electrical impedance tomography (EIT) measures and airway stress index (SIaw). Five Crs were measured at PEEP values of 25 cm H₂O (PEEP₂₅), 20 cm H₂O (PEEP₂₀), 15 cm H₂O (PEEP_H), 11 cm H₂O (PEEP_I), and 7 cm H₂O (PEEP_L). The higher PEEP value of the two PEEPs with similar best Crs was designated as PEEP_upper, while the lower designated as PEEP_lower.

Results

PEEP_H and PEEP_I shared the best Crs in two cases, while similar Crs was found at PEEP_I and PEEP_L in the remaining six cases. SIaw was higher with PEEP_upper as compared to PEEP_lower (1.06 ± 0.10 versus 0.99 ± 0.09, p = 0.05). Proportion of lung hyperdistension was significantly higher with PEEP_upper than PEEP_lower (7.0 ± 5.1% versus 0.3 ± 0.5%, p = 0.0002). In contrast, proportion of recruitable lung collapse was higher with PEEP_lower than PEEP_upper (18.6 ± 4.4% versus 5.9 ± 3.7%, p < 0.0001). Cyclic alveolar collapse and reopening during tidal breathing was higher at PEEP_lower than PEEP_upper (34.4 ± 19.3% versus 16.0 ± 9.1%, p = 0.046). The intratidal gas distribution (ITV) index was also significantly higher at PEEP_lower than PEEP_upper (2.6 ± 1.3 versus 1.8 ± 0.7, p = 0.042).

Conclusions

PEEP_upper is a rational selection in ARDS cases with two similar best Crs. EIT provides additional information for the selection of PEEP in such circumstances.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40846-021-00668-2.

Use of Lung Ultrasound for Assessment of Lung Recruitment Maneuvers in Patients with ARDS

BACKGROUND: Positive pressure mechanical ventilation is a non-physiological intervention that saves lives but is not free of important side effects. It invariably results in different degrees of collapse of small airways. Recruitment maneuver (RM) aims to resolve lung collapse by a brief and controlled increment in airway pressure while positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) afterward keeps the lungs open. Therefore, ideally RM and PEEP selection must be individualized and this can only be done when guided by specific monitoring tools since lung’s opening and closing pressures vary among patients with different lung conditions. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore the clinical value of ultrasonic monitoring in the assessment of pulmonary recruitment and the best PEEP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was conducted on 120 patients, 30 were excluded as in whom lung collapse cannot be confirmed then the rest were 90 patients from whom another 25 patients excluded as they were hemodynamically unstable the rest 65 patients were divided into two groups: Group A: Included 50 mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS, underwent lung recruitment using lung ultrasound and Group B: Included 15 mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS, underwent lung recruitment using oxygenation index. This prospective study was held at many critical care departments around Egypt. RESULTS: We noticed that lung recruitment in both groups significantly increased Pao2/Fio2 ratio immediately after recruitment compared with basal state and also significantly increase dynamic compliance compared with basal state. The increase in PF ratio immediately was significantly more in ultrasound group than in oxygenation group. Furthermore, we noticed that that P/F ratio 12 h after recruitment decreased compared with P/F ratio immediately after recruitment but significantly increased compared with basal state before recruitment and also we found that the increase in P/F ratio 12 h after recruitment was more significantly in lung ultrasound group than in oxygenation group. Furthermore, we noticed that lung recruitment (both lung ultrasound and oxygenation group) significantly increase RV function using TAPSE compared with basal state. Both opening pressure and optimal PEEP were significantly higher in lung ultrasound group than in oxygenation group. In our study, opening pressure was 37.28 ± 1.25 in lung ultrasound group and was 36.67±0.98 in oxygenation group and optimal PEEP was 14.64 ± 1.08 in lung ultrasound group and was 13.13 ± 0.74 in oxygenation group. CONCLUSION: Lung US is an effective mean of evaluating and guiding alveolar recruitment in ARDS. Compared with the maximal oxygenation–guided method, the protocol for reaeration in US-guided lung recruitment achieved a higher opening pressure, resulted in greater improvements in lung aeration, and substantially reduced lung heterogeneity in ARDS.

Precision Medicine and Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect in Therapies for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a clinically heterogenous syndrome, rather than a distinct disease. This heterogeneity at least partially explains the difficulty in studying treatments for these patients and contributes to the numerous trials of therapies for the syndrome that have not shown benefit. Recent studies have identified different subphenotypes within the heterogenous patient population. These different subphenotypes likely have variable clinical responses to specific therapies, a concept known as heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE). Recognizing different subphenotypes and HTE has important implications for the clinical management of patients with ARDS. In this review, we will present studies that have identified different subphenotypes and discuss how they can modify the effects of therapies evaluated in trials that are commonly considered to have demonstrated no overall benefit in patients with ARDS.

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.

OLA strategy for ARDS: Its effect on mortality depends on achieved recruitment (PaO2/FiO2) and mechanical power. Systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression

OBJECTIVE

The "Open Lung Approach" (OLA), that includes high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure coupled with limited tidal volumes, is considered optimal for adult patients with ARDS. However, many previous meta-analyses have shown only marginal benefits of OLA on mortality but with statistical heterogeneity. It is crucial to identify the most likely moderators of this effect. To determine the effect of OLA strategy on mortality of ventilated ARDS patients. We hypothesized that the degree of recruitment achieved in the control group (PaO2/FiO2 ratio on day 3 of ventilation), and the difference in Mechanical Power (MP) or Driving Pressure (DP) between experimental and control groups will be the most likely sources of heterogeneity.

DESIGN

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO database. We searched only for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). GRADE guidelines were used for rating the quality of evidence. Publication bias was assessed. For the Meta-analysis, we used a Random Effects Model. Sources of heterogeneity were explored with Meta-Regression, using a priori proposed set of possible moderators. For model comparison, Akaike's Information Criterion with the finite sample correction (AICc) was used.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENTS

Fourteen RCTs were included in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Not applicable.

RESULTS

Evidence of publication bias was detected, and quality of evidence was downgraded. Pooled analysis did not show a significant difference in the 28-day mortality between OLA strategy and control groups. Overall risk of bias was low. The analysis detected statistical heterogeneity. The two "best" explicative meta-regression models were those that used control PaO2/FiO2 on day 3 and difference in MP between experimental and control groups. The DP and MP models were highly correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear benefit of OLA strategy on mortality of ARDS patients, with significant heterogeneity among RCTs. Mortality effect of OLA is mediated by lung recruitment and mechanical power.

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

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mortality remains high. These patients require mechanical ventilation, which has been associated with ventilator-induced lung injury. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) could reduce this condition and improve patient survival. This is an updated version of the review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For our previous review, we searched databases from inception until 2013. For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Web of Science from inception until May 2020. We also searched for ongoing trials (www.trialscentral.org; www.clinicaltrial.gov; www.controlled-trials.com), and we screened the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared high versus low levels of PEEP in ALI and ARDS participants who were intubated and mechanically ventilated in intensive care for at least 24 hours.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. We contacted investigators to identify additional published and unpublished studies. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four new studies (1343 participants) in this review update. In total, we included 10 studies (3851 participants). We found evidence of risk of bias in six studies, and the remaining studies fulfilled all criteria for low risk of bias. In eight studies (3703 participants), a comparison was made between high and low levels of PEEP, with the same tidal volume in both groups. In the remaining two studies (148 participants), the tidal volume was different between high- and low-level groups. In the main analysis, we assessed mortality occurring before hospital discharge only in studies that compared high versus low PEEP, with the same tidal volume in both groups. Evidence suggests that high PEEP may result in little to no difference in mortality compared to low PEEP (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.04; I² = 15%; 7 studies, 3640 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, high PEEP may result in little to no difference in barotrauma (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.57; I² = 63%; 9 studies, 3791 participants; low-certainty evidence). High PEEP may improve oxygenation in patients up to the first and third days of mechanical ventilation (first day: mean difference (MD) 51.03, 95% CI 35.86 to 66.20; I² = 85%; 6 studies, 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; third day: MD 50.32, 95% CI 34.92 to 65.72; I² = 83%; 6 studies, 2309 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably improves oxygenation up to the seventh day (MD 28.52, 95% CI 20.82 to 36.21; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 1611 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence suggests that high PEEP results in little to no difference in the number of ventilator-free days (MD 0.45, 95% CI -2.02 to 2.92; I² = 81%; 3 studies, 1654 participants; low-certainty evidence). Available data were insufficient to pool the evidence for length of stay in the intensive care unit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that high levels compared to low levels of PEEP do not reduce mortality before hospital discharge. Low-certainty evidence suggests that high levels of PEEP result in little to no difference in the risk of barotrauma. Low-certainty evidence also suggests that high levels of PEEP improve oxygenation up to the first and third days of mechanical ventilation, and moderate-certainty evidence indicates that high levels of PEEP improve oxygenation up to the seventh day of mechanical ventilation. As in our previous review, we found clinical heterogeneity - mainly within participant characteristics and methods of titrating PEEP - that does not allow us to draw definitive conclusions regarding the use of high levels of PEEP in patients with ALI and ARDS. Further studies should aim to determine the appropriate method of using high levels of PEEP and the advantages and disadvantages associated with high levels of PEEP in different ARDS and ALI patient populations.

Between-trial heterogeneity in ARDS research

Purpose

Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) revealed indeterminate or conflicting study results. We aimed to systematically evaluate between-trial heterogeneity in reporting standards and trial outcome.

Methods

A systematic review of RCTs published between 2000 and 2019 was performed including adult ARDS patients receiving lung-protective ventilation. A random-effects meta-regression model was applied to quantify heterogeneity (non-random variability) and to evaluate trial and patient characteristics as sources of heterogeneity.

Results

In total, 67 RCTs were included. The 28-day control-group mortality rate ranged from 10 to 67% with large non-random heterogeneity (I² = 88%, p < 0.0001). Reported baseline patient characteristics explained some of the outcome heterogeneity, but only six trials (9%) reported all four independently predictive variables (mean age, mean lung injury score, mean plateau pressure and mean arterial pH). The 28-day control group mortality adjusted for patient characteristics (i.e. the residual heterogeneity) ranged from 18 to 45%. Trials with significant benefit in the primary outcome reported a higher control group mortality than trials with an indeterminate outcome or harm (mean 28-day control group mortality: 44% vs. 28%; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Among ARDS RCTs in the lung-protective ventilation era, there was large variability in the description of baseline characteristics and significant unexplainable heterogeneity in 28-day control group mortality. These findings signify problems with the generalizability of ARDS research and underline the urgent need for standardized reporting of trial and baseline characteristics.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-021-06370-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Non-specialist therapeutic strategies in acute respiratory distress syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the mortality benefit of non-specialist therapeutic interventions for ARDS available to general critical care units.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register for RCTs investigating therapeutic interventions in ARDS including corticosteroids, fluid management strategy, high PEEP, low tidal volume ventilation, neuromuscular blockade, prone position ventilation, or recruitment maneuvers. Data was collected on demographic information, treatment strategy, duration and dose of treatment, and primary (28 or 30-day mortality) and secondary (P<inf>a</inf>O<inf>2</inf>:FiO<inf>2</inf> ratio at 24-48 hours) outcomes.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

No improvement in 28-day mortality could be demonstrated in three RCTs investigating high PEEP (28.0% vs. 30.2% control; risk ratio [confidence interval] 0.93 [0.82-1.06]; eight assessing prone position ventilation (39.3% vs. 44.5%; RR 0.83 [0.68-1.01]; seven investigating neuromuscular blockade (37.8% vs. 42.0%; RR 0.91 [0.81-1.03]); ten investigating recruitment maneuvers (42.4% vs. 42.1%; RR 1.01 [0.91-1.12]); eight investigating steroids (34.8% vs. 41.1%; RR 0.81 [0.59-1.12]); and one investigating conservative fluid strategies (25.4% vs. 28.4%; RR 0.90 [0.73-1.10]). Three studies assessing low tidal volume ventilation (33.1% vs. 41.9%; RR 0.79 (0.68-0.91); P=0.001), and subgroup analyses within studies investigating prone position ventilation greater than 12 hours (33.1% vs. 44.4%; RR 0.75 [0.59-0.95), P=0.02) did reveal outcome benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Among non-specialist therapeutic strategies available to general critical care units, low tidal volumes and prone position ventilation for greater than 12 hours improve mortality in ARDS.

Effects of higher PEEP and recruitment manoeuvres on mortality in patients with ARDS: a systematic review, meta-analysis, meta-regression and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung recruitment could be maximised with the use of recruitment manoeuvres (RM) or applying a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) higher than what is necessary to maintain minimal adequate oxygenation. We aimed to determine whether ventilation strategies using higher PEEP and/or RMs could decrease mortality in patients with ARDS.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from 1996 to December 2019, included randomized controlled trials comparing ventilation with higher PEEP and/or RMs to strategies with lower PEEP and no RMs in patients with ARDS. We computed pooled estimates with a DerSimonian-Laird mixed-effects model, assessing mortality and incidence of barotrauma, population characteristics, physiologic variables and ventilator settings. We performed a trial sequential analysis (TSA) and a meta-regression.

Results

Excluding two studies that used tidal volume (V_T) reduction as co-intervention, we included 3870 patients from 10 trials using higher PEEP alone (n = 3), combined with RMs (n = 6) or RMs alone (n = 1). We did not observe differences in mortality (relative risk, RR 0.96, 95% confidence interval, CI [0.84–1.09], p = 0.50) nor in incidence of barotrauma (RR 1.22, 95% CI [0.93–1.61], p = 0.16). In the meta-regression, the PEEP difference between intervention and control group at day 1 and the use of RMs were not associated with increased risk of barotrauma. The TSA reached the required information size for mortality (n = 2928), and the z-line surpassed the futility boundary.

Conclusions

At low V_T, the routine use of higher PEEP and/or RMs did not reduce mortality in unselected patients with ARDS.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42017082035.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

BACKGROUND

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.

METHODS

We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy.

CONCLUSION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

BACKGROUND

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.

METHODS

We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.

CONCLUSION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome in acute pancreatitis

Development of organ failure is one of the major determinants of mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an important cause of respiratory failure in AP and is associated with high mortality. Pathogenesis of ARDS in AP is incompletely understood. Release of various cytokines plays an important role in development of ARDS in AP. Increased gut permeability due to various toxins, inflammatory mediators, and pancreatic enzymes potentiates lung injury by gut-lymph-lung axis leading on to increased translocation of bacterial endotoxins. Various scoring systems, serum levels of various cytokines and lung ultrasound have been evaluated for prediction of development of ARDS in AP with varying results. Various drugs have shown encouraging results in prevention of ARDS in animal models but these encouraging results in animal models are yet to be confirmed in clinical studies. There is no specific effective treatment for ARDS. Treatment of sepsis and local complications of AP should be done according to the standard management strategies. Lung protective ventilatory strategies are of paramount importance to improve outcome of patients of AP with ARDS and therefore effective coordination between gastroenterologists and intensivists is needed for effective management of these patients.

Effect of lung recruitment maneuver on oxygenation, physiological parameters and mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Among acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients in intensive care units, the efficacy of lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) use is uncertain taking into account the most recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to estimate the effect of LRMs on mortality from ARDS.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for RCTs comparing mechanical ventilation with and without LRMs in adults with ARDS. We generated pooled relative risks (RR), mean difference, performed trial-sequential-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were oxygenation evaluated by PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, rate of rescue therapy and rate of hemodynamic compromise.

RESULTS

In 14 RCTs including 3185 patients, LRMs were not associated with reduced 28-day mortality (RR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.82-1.04, P = 0.21), compared to no-LRM. Trial-sequential-analysis showed that the required information size has been accrued. PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio was significantly higher in the LRMs group in comparison to the no-LRM group (mean difference = 47.6 mmHg, 95% CI 33.4-61.8, P < 0.001). LRMs were associated with a decreased rate of rescue therapy (RR = 0.69 95% CI 0.56-0.84, P < 0.001), and an increased rate of hemodynamic compromise (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.33, P = 0.002), compared to no-LRM group. Using cumulative meta-analysis, a significant change for effect on mortality was observed after 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that in ARDS patients, systematic use of LRMs does not significantly improve 28-day mortality. However, LRM use was associated with positive effects such as an oxygenation improvement and a less frequent use of rescue therapy. Nevertheless, LRM use was associated with negative effects such as hemodynamic impairment.

Clinical outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome in a university hospital

Background

Mortality rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are different, depending on severity, etiology, and management.

Objective

To determine 7-day and 28-day mortalities, hospital length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) of ARDS patients, and factors associated with poor outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted to review the database of ARDS patients admitted in medical intensive care units (ICUs) at a university hospital between 2010 and 2014. The cases were identified by using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code-J80 ARDS.

Results

Of 266 patients, 11.7%, 44.4%, and 44% fulfilled mild, moderate, and severe ARDS criteria, respectively. The main cause of ARDS was pneumonia. The 7-day and 28-day mortalities, median LOS, and median MV duration were 31.1%, 69.3%, 18, and 11 days, respectively. Pressure control was the most favorite mode, used with average tidal volume (TV) of 8.63 (2.16) mL/kg ideal body weight (IBW). Recruitment maneuver was most frequently used as adjunctive intervention, whereas prone position was applied to 3.75% of the patients. One-third of the patients received neuromuscular blockades. The median 7-day fluid balance was +6,600 mL. The mean PaO2/FiO2 ratio during the first 3 days, cumulative fluid balance on day 3, and average daily calories during the first week were independent predictors for adjusted 7-day mortality, whereas Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score, fluid balance on day 1, cumulative fluid balance, and average daily calories during the first week were independent predictors for adjusted 28-day mortality.

Conclusions

The 28-day mortality of ARDS was high. In addition, TV and fluid balance were greater than protective limits. These findings indicated the potential improvement of ARDS outcomes in our hospital.

Lung Recruitment Maneuvers for ARDS Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lung recruitment maneuvers (LRMs) may reduce mortality and improve oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the existing literature provides controversial conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether LRMs have benefits on ARDS patients. Searching Methods: We searched relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2018. We considered for inclusion all prospective and randomized controlled trials which compared LRMs and non-LRM in adult patients with ARDS. We collected data about in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, the length of ICU and hospital stay, PaO2/FiO2, and FiO2.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials including 3,025 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was found in the hospital and 28-day mortality, as well as the length of ICU stay and oxygen requirement, even undergoing subgroup analysis. However, the results of this meta-analysis showed a significant benefit of LRMs for shortening the length of hospital stay (mean difference, MD = -1.75; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.09; p = 0.04; p for heterogeneity = 0.3, I2 = 18%) and improving PaO2/FiO2 ratio on the third day (MD = 52.72; 95% CI, 18.77-86.67; p = 0.002), but with extremely high heterogeneity (p for heterogeneity <0.0001, I2 = 99%).

CONCLUSION

LRMs do not produce significant reduction of mortality in patients with ARDS but may shorten the length of hospital stay and improve oxygenation on the third day. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously as most studies were on multiple intervention exposures.

Assessment of Therapeutic Interventions and Lung Protective Ventilation in Patients With Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

A number of interventions are available to manage patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the associations of currently available ventilatory strategies and adjunctive therapies with mortality are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To compare and rank different therapeutic strategies to identify the best intervention associated with a reduction in mortality in adult patients with moderate to severe ARDS.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic search of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process/ePubs Ahead of Print, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register (Central), PubMed, and CINAHL was conducted, from database inception to May 29, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of interventions for adults with moderate to severe ARDS that used lung protective ventilation. No language restrictions were applied.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers and synthesized with Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Barotrauma was a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Among 25 randomized clinical trials evaluating 9 interventions, 2686 of 7743 patients (34.6%) died within 28 days. Compared with lung protective ventilation alone, prone positioning and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were associated with significantly lower 28-day mortality (prone positioning: risk ratio, 0.69; 95% credible interval, 0.48-0.99; low quality of evidence; venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: risk ratio, 0.60; 95% credible interval, 0.38-0.93; moderate quality of evidence). These 2 interventions had the highest ranking probabilities, although they were not significantly different from each other. Among 18 trials reporting on barotrauma, 448 of 6258 patients (7.2%) experienced this secondary outcome. No intervention was superior to any other in reducing barotrauma, and each represented low to very low quality of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This network meta-analysis supports the use of prone positioning and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in addition to lung protective ventilation in patients with ARDS. Moreover, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be considered as an early strategy for adults with severe ARDS receiving lung protective ventilation.

Formal guidelines: management of acute respiratory distress syndrome

Fifteen recommendations and a therapeutic algorithm regarding the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at the early phase in adults are proposed. The Grade of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology has been followed. Four recommendations (low tidal volume, plateau pressure limitation, no oscillatory ventilation, and prone position) had a high level of proof (GRADE 1 + or 1 -); four (high positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] in moderate and severe ARDS, muscle relaxants, recruitment maneuvers, and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) a low level of proof (GRADE 2 + or 2 -); seven (surveillance, tidal volume for non ARDS mechanically ventilated patients, tidal volume limitation in the presence of low plateau pressure, PEEP > 5 cmH2O, high PEEP in the absence of deleterious effect, pressure mode allowing spontaneous ventilation after the acute phase, and nitric oxide) corresponded to a level of proof that did not allow use of the GRADE classification and were expert opinions. Lastly, for three aspects of ARDS management (driving pressure, early spontaneous ventilation, and extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal), the experts concluded that no sound recommendation was possible given current knowledge. The recommendations and the therapeutic algorithm were approved by the experts with strong agreement.

Formal guidelines: management of acute respiratory distress syndrome

Fifteen recommendations and a therapeutic algorithm regarding the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at the early phase in adults are proposed. The Grade of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology has been followed. Four recommendations (low tidal volume, plateau pressure limitation, no oscillatory ventilation, and prone position) had a high level of proof (GRADE 1 + or 1 −); four (high positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] in moderate and severe ARDS, muscle relaxants, recruitment maneuvers, and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) a low level of proof (GRADE 2 + or 2 −); seven (surveillance, tidal volume for non ARDS mechanically ventilated patients, tidal volume limitation in the presence of low plateau pressure, PEEP > 5 cmH2O, high PEEP in the absence of deleterious effect, pressure mode allowing spontaneous ventilation after the acute phase, and nitric oxide) corresponded to a level of proof that did not allow use of the GRADE classification and were expert opinions. Lastly, for three aspects of ARDS management (driving pressure, early spontaneous ventilation, and extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal), the experts concluded that no sound recommendation was possible given current knowledge. The recommendations and the therapeutic algorithm were approved by the experts with strong agreement.

Guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome

The Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and Intensive Care Society Guideline Development Group have used GRADE methodology to make the following recommendations for the management of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The British Thoracic Society supports the recommendations in this guideline. Where mechanical ventilation is required, the use of low tidal volumes (<6 ml/kg ideal body weight) and airway pressures (plateau pressure <30 cmH2O) was recommended. For patients with moderate/severe ARDS (PF ratio<20 kPa), prone positioning was recommended for at least 12 hours per day. By contrast, high frequency oscillation was not recommended and it was suggested that inhaled nitric oxide is not used. The use of a conservative fluid management strategy was suggested for all patients, whereas mechanical ventilation with high positive end-expiratory pressure and the use of the neuromuscular blocking agent cisatracurium for 48 hours was suggested for patients with ARDS with ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PF) ratios less than or equal to 27 and 20 kPa, respectively. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was suggested as an adjunct to protective mechanical ventilation for patients with very severe ARDS. In the absence of adequate evidence, research recommendations were made for the use of corticosteroids and extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal.

Effect of lung recruitment and titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) versus low PEEP on patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Setting a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving mechanical ventilation has been an issue of great contention. Therefore, we aimed to determine effects of lung recruitment maneuver (RM) and titrated PEEP versus low PEEP on adult patients with moderate-severe ARDS.

METHODS

Data sources and study selection proceeded as follows: PubMed, Ovid, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from 2003 to May 2018. Original clinical randomized controlled trials which met the eligibility criteria were included. To compare the prognosis between the titrated PEEP and low PEEP groups on patients with moderate-severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg). Heterogeneity was quantified through the I2 statistic. Egger's test and funnel plots were used to assess publication bias.

RESULTS

No difference was found in 28-day mortality and ICU mortality (OR = 0.97, 95% CI (0.61-1.52), p = 0.88; OR = 1.14, 95% CI (0.91-1.43), p = 0.26, respectively). Only ventilator-free days, length of stay in the ICU, length of stay in hospital, and incidence of barotrauma could be systematically reviewed owing to bias and extensive heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

No difference was observed in the RM between the titrated PEEP and the low PEEP in 28-day mortality and ICU mortality on patients with moderate-severe ARDS.

Higher PEEP improves outcomes in ARDS patients with clinically objective positive oxygenation response to PEEP: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains high. These patients require mechanical ventilation strategies that include high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). It remains controversial whether high PEEP can improve outcomes for ARDS patients, especially patients who show improvement in oxygenation in response to PEEP. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the effects of high PEEP on ARDS patients.

Methods

We electronically searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science databases from January 1990 to December 2017. Meta-analyses of the effects of PEEP on survival in adults with ARDS were conducted using the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Results

A total of 3612 patients from nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. There were 1794 and 1818 patients in the high and low PEEP groups, respectively. Hospital mortality showed no significant difference between the high and low PEEP groups (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; P = 0.26). Similar results were found for 28-d mortality (RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.07; P = 0.19) and ICU mortality (RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.07; P = 0.15). The risk of clinically objectified barotrauma was not significantly different between the high and low PEEP groups (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.09, P = 0.41). In the subgroup of ARDS patients who responded to increased PEEP by improved oxygenation (from 6 RCTs), high PEEP significantly reduced hospital mortality (RR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; P = 0.03), ICU mortality (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.98; P = 0.04),but the 28-d mortality was not decreased(RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.01; P = 0.07). For ARDS patients in the low PEEP group who received a PEEP level lower than 10 cmH₂O (from 6 RCTs), ICU mortality was lower in the high PEEP group than the low PEEP group (RR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.94; P = 0.02).

Conclusions

For ARDS patients who responded to increased PEEP by improved oxygenation, high PEEP could reduce hospital mortality, ICU mortality and 28-d mortality. High PEEP does not increase the risk of clinically objectified barotrauma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0631-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of Recruitment Maneuvers in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a deadly complication in critically ill patients that causes significant morbidity and mortality. Patients with ARDS are seen across intensive care unit settings, with treatment being largely supportive involving techniques through mechanical ventilation. Using low-tidal-volume ventilation is a standard of practice for patients with ARDS, as a lung protection strategy; however, alveolar decruitment may occur. Recruitment maneuvers can recruit collapsed alveoli and promote oxygenation. There are several methods of recruitment maneuvers-each with varying levels and durations of positive end-expiratory pressure. It is still uncertain which method is the best. The evidence for the efficacy of recruitment maneuvers has shown a decrease in intensive care unit mortality, but strong evidence is lacking for its routine use, and the decision to use recruitment maneuvers should be based on individual characteristics and responses. This article reviews management of ARDS, recruitment maneuver techniques, and clinical application through a case study.

Recruitment maneuver does not provide any mortality benefit over lung protective strategy ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the randomized controlled trials

Background

Clinical benefits of recruitment maneuver in ARDS patients are controversial. A number of previous studies showed possible benefits; a large recent study reported that recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration may even be harmful. This meta-analysis was designed to compare the clinical utility of recruitment maneuver with low tidal volume ventilation in adult patients with ARDS.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials comparing recruitment maneuver and lung protective ventilation strategy with lung protective strategy ventilation protocol alone in adult patients with ARDS has been included in this meta-analysis. PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 10 November 2017 to identify potentially eligible trials. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated for binary and continuous variables respectively.

Results

Data of 2480 patients from 7 randomized controlled trials have been included in this meta-analysis and systemic review. Reported mortality at the longest available follow-up [RR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.80, 1.08); p = 0.33], ICU mortality [RR (95% CI) 0.91 (0.76, 1.10); p = 0.33] and in-hospital mortality [RR (95% CI) 0.95 (0.83, 1.08); p = 0.45] were similar between recruitment maneuver group and standard lung protective ventilation group. Duration of hospital stay [SMD (95% CI) 0.00 (− 0.09, 0.10); p = 0.92] and duration of ICU stays [SMD (95% CI) 0.05 (− 0.09, 0.19); p = 0.49] were also similar between recruitment maneuver group and standard lung protective ventilation group. Risk of barotrauma was also similar.

Conclusion

Use of recruitment maneuver along with co-interventions such as PEEP titration does not provide any benefit in terms of mortality, length of ICU, and hospital stay in ARDS patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-018-0305-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Higher PEEP versus Lower PEEP Strategies for Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

RATIONALE

Higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels may reduce atelectrauma, but increase over-distention lung injury. Whether higher PEEP improves clinical outcomes among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical outcomes of mechanical ventilation strategies using higher PEEP levels versus lower PEEP strategies in patients with ARDS.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials investigating mechanical ventilation strategies using higher versus lower PEEP levels. We used random effects models to evaluate the effect of higher PEEP on 28-day mortality, organ failure, ventilator-free days, barotrauma, oxygenation, and ventilation.

RESULTS

We identified eight randomized trials comparing higher versus lower PEEP strategies, enrolling 2,728 patients with ARDS. Patients were 55 (±16) (mean ± SD) years old and 61% were men. Mean PEEP in the higher PEEP groups was 15.1 (±3.6) cm H₂O as compared with 9.1 (±2.7) cm H₂O in the lower PEEP groups. Primary analysis excluding two trials that did not use lower Vt ventilation in the lower PEEP control groups did not demonstrate significantly reduced mortality for patients receiving higher PEEP as compared with a lower PEEP (six trials; 2,580 patients; relative risk, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80-1.03). A higher PEEP strategy also did not significantly decrease barotrauma, new organ failure, or ventilator-free days when compared with a lower PEEP strategy (moderate-level evidence). Quality of evidence for primary analyses was downgraded for precision, as CIs of outcomes included estimates that would result in divergent recommendations for use of higher PEEP. Secondary analysis, including trials that did not use low Vt in low-PEEP control groups, showed significant mortality reduction for high-PEEP strategies (eight trials; 2,728 patients; relative risk, 0.84; 95% CI = 0.71-0.99), with greater mortality benefit observed for high PEEP in trials that did not use lower Vts in the low-PEEP control group (P = 0.02). Analyses stratifying by use of recruitment maneuvers (P for interaction = 0.69), or use of physiological targets to set PEEP versus PEEP/Fi_O2 tables (P for interaction = 0.13), did not show significant effect modification.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of higher PEEP is unlikely to improve clinical outcomes among unselected patients with ARDS.

Lung Recruitment Maneuvers for Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

RATIONALE

In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung recruitment maneuvers (LRMs) may prevent ventilator-induced lung injury and improve survival.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the current evidence in support of the use of LRMs in adult patients with ARDS and to inform the recently published American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on mechanical ventilation in ARDS.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing mechanical ventilation strategies with and without LRMs. Eligible trials were identified from among previously published systematic reviews and an updated literature search. Data on 28-day mortality, oxygenation, adverse events, and use of rescue therapy were collected, and results were pooled using random effects models weighted by inverse variance. Strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

RESULTS

We screened 430 citations and previous systematic reviews and found six trials eligible for inclusion (n = 1,423 patients in total). The type of LRM varied widely between trials, and five of the trials involved a cointervention with a higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilation strategy. Risk of bias was deemed high in one trial. In the primary analysis, the only trial without a cointervention showed that LRMs were associated with reduced mortality (one trial; risk ratio [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.98; evidence grade = low). Meta-analysis of all six trials also suggested a significant mortality reduction (six trials; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; evidence grade = moderate), and the use of a higher PEEP cointervention did not significantly modify the mortality effect (P = 0.27 for heterogeneity). LRMs were also associated with improved oxygenation after 24 hours (six trials; mean increase, 52 mm Hg; 95% CI, 23-81 mm Hg) and less frequent requirement for rescue therapy (three trials; RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.94). LRMs were not associated with an increased rate of barotrauma (four trials; RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.46-1.55). The rate of hemodynamic compromise was not significantly increased with LRMs (three trials; RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92-1.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized trials suggest that LRMs in combination with a higher PEEP ventilation strategy reduce mortality, but confidence in this finding is limited. Further trials are required to confirm benefit from LRMs in adults with ARDS.

Ventilator-induced lung injury during controlled ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: less is probably better

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical ventilation is required to support respiratory function in the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but it may promote lung damage, a phenomenon known as ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Areas covered: Several mechanisms of VILI have been described, such as: inspiratory and/or expiratory stress inducing overdistension (volutrauma); interfaces between collapsed or edema-filled alveoli with surrounding open alveoli, acting as stress raisers; alveoli that repetitively open and close during tidal breathing (atelectrauma); and peripheral airway dynamics. In this review, we discuss: the definition and classification of ARDS; ventilatory parameters that act as VILI determinants (tidal volume, respiratory rate, positive end-expiratory pressure, peak, plateau, driving and transpulmonary pressures, energy, mechanical power, and intensity); and the roles of prone positioning and muscle paralysis. We seek to provide an up-to-date overview of the evidence in the field from a clinical perspective. Expert commentary: To prevent VILI, mechanical ventilation strategies should minimize inspiratory/expiratory stress, dynamic/static strain, energy, mechanical power, and intensity, as well as mitigate the hemodynamic consequences of positive-pressure ventilation. In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, prone positioning can reduce lung damage and improve survival. Overall, volutrauma seems to be more harmful than atelectrauma. Extracorporeal support should be considered in selected cases.

An Open Lung Strategy in the Management of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

An open lung strategy (OLS) that includes positive end expiratory pressure and recruitment maneuvers during mechanical ventilation is probably an important treatment method in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the effect of OLS is unknown. We therefore hypothesized that patients with ARDS may benefit from OLS treatment.

METHODS

We identified relevant randomized controlled trials by searching through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated to May 22, 2016. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of OLS in patients with ARDS. The primary outcome was mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 15 randomized controlled trials involving 1,563 patients in OLS group and 1,571 patients in control group were included. Pooled analysis showed that there was significant difference in hospital mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97; P = 0.009), 28-day mortality (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96; P = 0.010), and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92; P = 0.003) between the OLS group and control group, with no substantial heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in ventilator-free days at 28-day (mean difference [MD]; 3.32 d; 95% CI, -0.49 to 7.12; P = 0.09) and ICU length of stay (MD; 1.60 d; 95% CI, -2.99 to 6.20; P = 0.49) between OLS group and control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that OLS during mechanical ventilation significantly reduces mortality among patients with ARDS.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] 10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine.

METHODS

Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.

RESULTS

A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

Background and Purpose

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version.

Methods

Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.

Results

A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs.

Conclusions

Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

Ultrasonic monitoring in the assessment of pulmonary recruitment and the best positive end-expiratory pressure

The aim of this study was to explore the clinical value of ultrasonic monitoring in the assessment of pulmonary recruitment and the best positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP).Between January 2015 and June 2017, 40 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in our hospital were randomly divided into 2 groups: ultrasound group (ULS group; n = 20) and oxygenation group (OXY group; n = 20). The PEEP incremental method was used to perform recruitment maneuvers. Ultrasound scoring and the oxygenation method were used to evaluate the pulmonary recruitment endpoint. The best PEEP was chosen by ultrasound scoring and the oxygenation method after achieving the pulmonary recruitment endpoint and sustaining it for 15 minutes.The oxygenation index, PEEP, peak airway pressure (Ppeak), mean airway pressure (Pmean), and dynamic compliance (Cdyn) in the OXY group were significantly lower than those in the ULS group (P < .05) at the pulmonary recruitment endpoint; however, there was no statistical significance in the mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) or heart rate (HR) (P > .05). The best PEEPs in the OXY and ULS groups were 13.1 ± 3.1 and 15.7 ± 4.2 cmH2O, respectively, with a significant difference between the 2 groups (t = 2.227, P = .016). Compared with the basal state, the Cdyn, oxygenation index, Pmean, and Ppeak in both groups significantly increased after pulmonary recruitment (P < .05). Furthermore, the Cdyn and oxygenation index in the ULS group were significantly higher than those in the OXY group after pulmonary recruitment (P < .05). The HR in both groups significantly increased, and the MAP significantly decreased. Two hours after recruitment, the HR and MAP returned to near basal levels without a significant difference between the 2 groups (P > .05).Lung ultrasound can be used to detect the endpoint of lung recruitment and the best PEEP, with good effects on lung compliance and oxygenation improvement.

The clinical practice guideline for the management of ARDS in Japan

BACKGROUND

The Japanese Society of Respiratory Care Medicine and the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine provide here a clinical practice guideline for the management of adult patients with ARDS in the ICU.

METHOD

The guideline was developed applying the GRADE system for performing robust systematic reviews with plausible recommendations. The guideline consists of 13 clinical questions mainly regarding ventilator settings and drug therapies (the last question includes 11 medications that are not approved for clinical use in Japan).

RESULTS

The recommendations for adult patients with ARDS include: we suggest against early tracheostomy (GRADE 2C), we suggest using NPPV for early respiratory management (GRADE 2C), we recommend the use of low tidal volumes at 6-8 mL/kg (GRADE 1B), we suggest setting the plateau pressure at 30cmH20 or less (GRADE2B), we suggest using PEEP within the range of plateau pressures less than or equal to 30cmH2O, without compromising hemodynamics (Grade 2B), and using higher PEEP levels in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (Grade 2B), we suggest using protocolized methods for liberation from mechanical ventilation (Grade 2D), we suggest prone positioning especially in patients with moderate to severe respiratory dysfunction (GRADE 2C), we suggest against the use of high frequency oscillation (GRADE 2C), we suggest the use of neuromuscular blocking agents in patients requiring mechanical ventilation under certain circumstances (GRADE 2B), we suggest fluid restriction in the management of ARDS (GRADE 2A), we do not suggest the use of neutrophil elastase inhibitors (GRADE 2D), we suggest the administration of steroids, equivalent to methylprednisolone 1-2mg/kg/ day (GRADE 2A), and we do not recommend other medications for the treatment of adult patients with ARDS (GRADE1B; inhaled/intravenous β2 stimulants, prostaglandin E1, activated protein C, ketoconazole, and lisofylline, GRADE 1C; inhaled nitric oxide, GRADE 1D; surfactant, GRADE 2B; granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor, N-acetylcysteine, GRADE 2C; Statin.).

CONCLUSIONS

This article was translated from the Japanese version originally published as the ARDS clinical practice guidelines 2016 by the committee of ARDS clinical practice guideline (Tokyo, 2016, 293p, available from http://www.jsicm.org/ARDSGL/ARDSGL2016.pdf). The original article, written for Japanese healthcare providers, provides points of view that are different from those in other countries.

Recruitment manoeuvres for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Recruitment manoeuvres involve transient elevations in airway pressure applied during mechanical ventilation to open ('recruit') collapsed lung units and increase the number of alveoli participating in tidal ventilation. Recruitment manoeuvres are often used to treat patients in intensive care who have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the effect of this treatment on clinical outcomes has not been well established. This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to determine the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on mortality in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Our secondary objective was to determine, in the same population, the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on oxygenation and adverse events (e.g. rate of barotrauma).

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCO), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry from inception to August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults who were mechanically ventilated that compared recruitment manoeuvres versus standard care for patients given a diagnosis of ARDS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials met the inclusion criteria for this review (n = 1658 participants). We found five trials to be at low risk of bias and five to be at moderate risk of bias. Six of the trials included recruitment manoeuvres as part of an open lung ventilation strategy that was different from control ventilation in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (such as mode of ventilation, higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration and lower tidal volume or plateau pressure). Six studies reported mortality outcomes. Pooled data from five trials (1370 participants) showed a reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.97, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence), pooled data from five trials (1450 participants) showed no difference in 28-day mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01, P = 0.06, low-quality evidence) and pooled data from four trials (1313 participants) showed no difference in in-hospital mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01, P = 0.07, low-quality evidence). Data revealed no differences in risk of barotrauma (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.53, P = 0.60, seven studies, 1508 participants, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified significant clinical heterogeneity in the 10 included trials. Results are based upon the findings of several (five) trials that included an "open lung ventilation strategy", whereby the intervention group differed from the control group in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (including co-interventions such as higher PEEP, different modes of ventilation and higher plateau pressure), making interpretation of the results difficult. A ventilation strategy that included recruitment manoeuvres in participants with ARDS reduced intensive care unit mortality without increasing the risk of barotrauma but had no effect on 28-day and hospital mortality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low, as most of the included trials provided co-interventions as part of an open lung ventilation strategy, and this might have influenced results of the outcome.

Clinical Practice Guideline of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

There is no well-stated practical guideline for mechanically ventilated patients with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We generate strong (1) and weak (2) grade of recommendations based on high (A), moderate (B) and low (C) grade in the quality of evidence. In patients with ARDS, we recommend low tidal volume ventilation (1A) and prone position if it is not contraindicated (1B) to reduce their mortality. However, we did not support high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (1B) and inhaled nitric oxide (1A) as a standard treatment. We also suggest high positive end-expiratory pressure (2B), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a rescue therapy (2C), and neuromuscular blockage for 48 hours after starting mechanical ventilation (2B). The application of recruitment maneuver may reduce mortality (2B), however, the use of systemic steroids cannot reduce mortality (2B). In mechanically ventilated patients, we recommend light sedation (1B) and low tidal volume even without ARDS (1B) and suggest lung protective ventilation strategy during the operation to lower the incidence of lung complications including ARDS (2B). Early tracheostomy in mechanically ventilated patients can be performed only in limited patients (2A). In conclusion, of 12 recommendations, nine were in the management of ARDS, and three for mechanically ventilated patients.

Open Lung Approach for the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Pilot, Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The open lung approach is a mechanical ventilation strategy involving lung recruitment and a decremental positive end-expiratory pressure trial. We compared the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol using low levels of positive end-expiratory pressure with open lung approach resulting in moderate to high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure for the management of established moderate/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.

DESIGN

A prospective, multicenter, pilot, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A network of 20 multidisciplinary ICUs.

PATIENTS

Patients meeting the American-European Consensus Conference definition for acute respiratory distress syndrome were considered for the study.

INTERVENTIONS

At 12-36 hours after acute respiratory distress syndrome onset, patients were assessed under standardized ventilator settings (FIO2≥0.5, positive end-expiratory pressure ≥10 cm H2O). If Pao2/FIO2 ratio remained less than or equal to 200 mm Hg, patients were randomized to open lung approach or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol. All patients were ventilated with a tidal volume of 4 to 8 ml/kg predicted body weight.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

From 1,874 screened patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, 200 were randomized: 99 to open lung approach and 101 to Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol. Main outcome measures were 60-day and ICU mortalities, and ventilator-free days. Mortality at day-60 (29% open lung approach vs. 33% Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network protocol, p = 0.18, log rank test), ICU mortality (25% open lung approach vs. 30% Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol, p = 0.53 Fisher's exact test), and ventilator-free days (8 [0-20] open lung approach vs. 7 [0-20] d Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol, p = 0.53 Wilcoxon rank test) were not significantly different. Airway driving pressure (plateau pressure - positive end-expiratory pressure) and PaO2/FIO2 improved significantly at 24, 48 and 72 hours in patients in open lung approach compared with patients in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol. Barotrauma rate was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with established acute respiratory distress syndrome, open lung approach improved oxygenation and driving pressure, without detrimental effects on mortality, ventilator-free days, or barotrauma. This pilot study supports the need for a large, multicenter trial using recruitment maneuvers and a decremental positive end-expiratory pressure trial in persistent acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Lung ventilation strategies for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

To identify the best lung ventilation strategy for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we performed a network meta-analysis. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Web of Science were searched, and 36 eligible articles were included. Compared with higher tidal volumes with FiO2-guided lower positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP], the hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality were 0.624 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.419-0.98) for lower tidal volumes with FiO2-guided lower PEEP and prone positioning and 0.572 (0.34-0.968) for pressure-controlled ventilation with FiO2-guided lower PEEP. Lower tidal volumes with FiO2-guided higher PEEP and prone positioning had the greatest potential to reduce mortality, and the possibility of receiving the first ranking was 61.6%. Permissive hypercapnia, recruitment maneuver, and low airway pressures were most likely to be the worst in terms of all-cause mortality. Compared with higher tidal volumes with FiO2-guided lower PEEP, pressure-controlled ventilation with FiO2-guided lower PEEP and lower tidal volumes with FiO2-guided lower PEEP and prone positioning ventilation are associated with lower mortality in ARDS patients. Lower tidal volumes with FiO2-guided higher PEEP and prone positioning ventilation and lower tidal volumes with pressure-volume (P-V) static curve-guided individual PEEP are potential optimal strategies for ARDS patients.

Recruitment maneuvers in acute respiratory distress syndrome: The safe way is the best way

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents a serious problem in critically ill patients and is associated with in-hospital mortality rates of 33%-52%. Recruitment maneuvers (RMs) are a simple, low-cost, feasible intervention that can be performed at the bedside in patients with ARDS. RMs are characterized by the application of airway pressure to increase transpulmonary pressure transiently. Once non-aerated lung units are reopened, improvements are observed in respiratory system mechanics, alveolar reaeration on computed tomography, and improvements in gas exchange (functional recruitment). However, the reopening process could lead to vascular compression, which can be associated with overinflation, and gas exchange may not improve as expected (anatomical recruitment). The purpose of this review was to discuss the effects of different RM strategies - sustained inflation, intermittent sighs, and stepwise increases of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and/or airway inspiratory pressure - on the following parameters: hemodynamics, oxygenation, barotrauma episodes, and lung recruitability through physiological variables and imaging techniques. RMs and PEEP titration are interdependent events for the success of ventilatory management. PEEP should be adjusted on the basis of respiratory system mechanics and oxygenation. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that RMs are associated with lower mortality in patients with ARDS. However, the optimal RM method (i.e., that providing the best balance of benefit and harm) and the effects of RMs on clinical outcome are still under discussion, and further evidence is needed.