Effect of Lowering Vt on Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Varies with Respiratory System Elastance.

Rationale: If the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is causally determined by driving pressure rather than by Vt, then the effect of ventilation with lower Vt on mortality would be predicted to vary according to respiratory system elastance (Ers). Objectives: To determine whether the mortality benefit of ventilation with lower Vt varies according to Ers. Methods: In a secondary analysis of patients from five randomized trials of lower- versus higher-Vt ventilation strategies in ARDS and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the posterior probability of an interaction between the randomized Vt strategy and Ers on 60-day mortality was computed using Bayesian multivariable logistic regression. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,096 patients available for analysis, 416 (38%) died by Day 60. The posterior probability that the mortality benefit from lower-Vt ventilation strategies varied with Ers was 93% (posterior median interaction odds ratio, 0.80 per cm H2O/[ml/kg]; 90% credible interval, 0.63-1.02). Ers was classified as low (<2 cm H2O/[ml/kg], n = 321, 32%), intermediate (2-3 cm H2O/[ml/kg], n = 475, 46%), and high (>3 cm H2O/[ml/kg], n = 224, 22%). In these groups, the posterior probabilities of an absolute risk reduction in mortality ≥ 1% were 55%, 82%, and 92%, respectively. The posterior probabilities of an absolute risk reduction ≥ 5% were 29%, 58%, and 82%, respectively. Conclusions: The mortality benefit of ventilation with lower Vt in ARDS varies according to elastance, suggesting that lung-protective ventilation strategies should primarily target driving pressure rather than Vt.

High-Frequency Oscillation for Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

RATIONALE: By minimizing tidal lung strain and maintaining alveolar recruitment, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may protect against ventilator-induced lung injury. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current evidence in support of the use of HFOV in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing mortality rates with the use of HFOV versus conventional mechanical ventilation for adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Eligible trials were identified from previously published systematic reviews and an updated literature search. Data on 28-day mortality, oxygenation, adverse events, and use of rescue therapies were collected; effects were pooled using random effects models weighted by inverse variance. Strength of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. RESULTS: Six trials were eligible for inclusion (total n = 1,715 patients). Four trials mandated lung-protective ventilation in the control group and one trial applied a higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilation strategy in the control group. None of the trials were judged to be at high risk of bias, though all were unblinded. In trials that did not systematically employ any cointerventions with HFOV and that targeted low tidal volumes in the patients randomized to conventional ventilation (primary analysis), HFOV had no significant effect on mortality (three trials; risk ratio [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 1.48; evidence grade = high). Pooled analysis of all six trials also did not suggest a significant mortality reduction (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.24; evidence grade = low). The single trial that employed a conventional ventilation strategy with both lower tidal volumes and higher PEEP as control reported higher mortality in patients receiving HFOV (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.79). HFOV was not associated with improved oxygenation after 24 hours (five trials; mean increase of 10 mm Hg; 95% CI, -16 to 37 mm Hg). Rates of barotrauma were not different between HFOV and conventional ventilation, although significant benefit or harm could not be excluded (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.17). CONCLUSIONS: Published randomized trials suggest that HFOV is not associated with a mortality benefit, and may even be harmful in comparison to ventilation with low tidal volumes and higher levels of PEEP.

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.