Recruitment-to-inflation ratio reflects the impact of peep on dynamic lung strain in a highly recruitable model of ARDS.

BACKGROUND: The recruitment-to-inflation ratio (R/I) has been recently proposed to bedside assess response to PEEP. The impact of PEEP on ventilator-induced lung injury depends on the extent of dynamic strain reduction. We hypothesized that R/I may reflect the potential for lung recruitment (i.e. recruitability) and, consequently, estimate the impact of PEEP on dynamic lung strain, both assessed through computed tomography scan. METHODS: Fourteen lung-damaged pigs (lipopolysaccharide infusion) underwent ventilation at low (5 cmH2O) and high PEEP (i.e., PEEP generating a plateau pressure of 28-30 cmH2O). R/I was measured through a one-breath derecruitment maneuver from high to low PEEP. PEEP-induced changes in dynamic lung strain, difference in nonaerated lung tissue weight (tissue recruitment) and amount of gas entering previously nonaerated lung units (gas recruitment) were assessed through computed tomography scan. Tissue and gas recruitment were normalized to the weight and gas volume of previously ventilated lung areas at low PEEP (normalized-tissue recruitment and normalized-gas recruitment, respectively). RESULTS: Between high (median [interquartile range] 20 cmH2O [18-21]) and low PEEP, median R/I was 1.08 [0.88-1.82], indicating high lung recruitability. Compared to low PEEP, tissue and gas recruitment at high PEEP were 246 g [182-288] and 385 ml [318-668], respectively. R/I was linearly related to normalized-gas recruitment (r = 0.90; [95% CI 0.71 to 0.97) and normalized-tissue recruitment (r = 0.69; [95% CI 0.25 to 0.89]). Dynamic lung strain was 0.37 [0.29-0.44] at high PEEP and 0.59 [0.46-0.80] at low PEEP (p < 0.001). R/I was significantly related to PEEP-induced reduction in dynamic (r = - 0.93; [95% CI - 0.78 to - 0.98]) and global lung strain (r = - 0.57; [95% CI - 0.05 to - 0.84]). No correlation was found between R/I and and PEEP-induced changes in static lung strain (r = 0.34; [95% CI - 0.23 to 0.74]). CONCLUSIONS: In a highly recruitable ARDS model, R/I reflects the potential for lung recruitment and well estimates the extent of PEEP-induced reduction in dynamic lung strain.

Recruitment-to-inflation ratio for bedside PEEP selection in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

In acute respiratory distress syndrome, the role of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to prevent ventilator-induced lung injury is controversial. Randomized trials comparing higher versus lower PEEP strategies failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit. This may depend on the inter-individually variable potential for lung recruitment (i.e. recruitability), which would warrant PEEP individualization to balance alveolar recruitment and the unavoidable baby lung overinflation produced by high pressure. Many techniques have been used to assess recruitability, including lung imaging, multiple pressure-volume curves and lung volume measurement. The Recruitment-to-Inflation ratio (R/I) has been recently proposed to bedside assess recruitability without additional equipment. R/I assessment is a simplified technique based on the multiple pressure-volume curve concept: it is measured by monitoring respiratory mechanics and exhaled tidal volume during a 10-cmH2O one-breath derecruitment maneuver after a short high-PEEP test. R/I scales recruited volume to respiratory system compliance, and normalizes recruitment to a proxy of actual lung size. With modest R/I (<0.3-0.4), setting low PEEP (5-8 cmH2O) may be advisable; with R/I>0.6-0.7, high PEEP (≥15 cmH2O) can be considered, provided that airway and/or transpulmonary plateau pressure do not exceed safety limits. In case of intermediate R/I (≈0.5), a more granular assessment of recruitability may be needed. This could be accomplished with advanced monitoring tools, like sequential lung volume measurement with granular R/I assessment or electrical impedance tomography monitoring during a decremental PEEP trial. In this review, we discuss R/I rationale, applications and limits, providing insights on its clinical use for PEEP selection in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Recruitment-to-inflation ratio to assess response to PEEP during laparoscopic surgery: A physiologic study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: During laparoscopic surgery, the role of PEEP to improve outcome is controversial. Mechanistically, PEEP benefits depend on the extent of alveolar recruitment, which prevents ventilator-induced lung injury by reducing lung dynamic strain. The hypotheses of this study were that pneumoperitoneum-induced aeration loss and PEEP-induced recruitment are inter-individually variable, and that the recruitment-to-inflation ratio (R/I) can identify patients who benefit from PEEP in terms of strain reduction. DESIGN: Sequential study. SETTING: Operating room. PATIENTS: Seventeen ASA I-III patients receiving robot-assisted prostatectomy during Trendelenburg pneumoperitoneum. INTERVENTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS: Patients underwent end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and respiratory/lung/chest wall mechanics (esophageal manometry and inspiratory/expiratory occlusions) assessment at PEEP = 0 cmH2O before and after pneumoperitoneum, at PEEP = 4 and 12 cmH2O during pneumoperitoneum. Pneumoperitoneum-induced derecruitment and PEEP-induced recruitment were assessed through a simplified method based on multiple pressure-volume curve. Dynamic and static strain changes were evaluated. R/I between 12 and 4 cmH2O was assessed from EELV. Inter-individual variability was rated with the ratio of standard deviation to mean (CoV). MAIN RESULTS: Pneumoperitoneum reduced EELV by (median [IqR]) 410 mL [80-770] (p < 0.001) and increased dynamic strain by 0.04 [0.01-0.07] (p < 0.001), with high inter-individual variability (CoV = 70% and 88%, respectively). Compared to PEEP = 4 cmH2O, PEEP = 12 cmH2O yielded variable amount of recruitment (139 mL [96-366] CoV = 101%), causing different extent of dynamic strain reduction (median decrease 0.02 [0.01-0.04], p = 0.002; CoV = 86%) and static strain increases (median increase 0.05 [0.04-0.07], p = 0.01, CoV = 33%). R/I (1.73 [0.58-3.35]) estimated the decrease in dynamic strain (p ≤0.001, r = -0.90) and the increase in static strain (p = 0.009, r = -0.73) induced by PEEP, while PEEP-induced changes in respiratory and lung mechanics did not. CONCLUSIONS: Trendelenburg pneumoperitoneum yields variable derecruitment: PEEP capability to revert these phenomena varies significantly among individuals. High R/I identifies patients in whom higher PEEP mostly reduces dynamic strain with limited static strain increases, potentially allowing individualized settings.