The Impact of PEEP on Ventilation Distribution in ARDS.

BACKGROUND: The first aim of this study was to evaluate the capacity of electrical impedance tomography (EIT) to identify the effect of PEEP on regional ventilation distribution and the regional risk of collapse, overdistention, hypoventilation, and pendelluft in mechanically ventilated patients. The second aim was to evaluate the feasibility of EIT for estimating airway opening pressure (AOP). METHODS: The EIT signal was recorded both during baseline cyclic ventilation and slow insufflation for one breath for 9 subjects with moderate-to-severe ARDS. From these data, the AOP and volumes insufflated to lung regions with or without the risk of either collapse, overdistention, hypoventilation, or pendelluft were assessed at 3 PEEP levels (5, 10, and 15 cm H2O). PEEP levels were compared by Friedman analysis of variance and the AOP measured by EIT evaluated using an F-test and the Bland and Altman method. RESULTS: The volume for which there was no specific risk significantly decreased at the highest PEEP from 55 ± 31% tidal volume (VT) at PEEP 5 or 82 ± 18% VT at PEEP 10 to 10 ± 30% VT at PEEP 15 (P = .038 between PEEP 5 vs PEEP 15; P = .01 between PEEP 10 vs PEEP 15). The volume associated with overdistention significantly increased with increasing PEEP, whereas that associated with atelectrauma significantly decreased. Pendelluft significantly decreased with increasing PEEP: VT of 8.9 ± 18.6%, 3.6 ± 7.0%, and 3.2 ± 7.1% for PEEP 5, PEEP 10, and PEEP 15, respectively. The center of ventilation tended to increase in the dependent direction with higher PEEP. The AOPs assessed by EIT and from the pressure-volume curve were in good agreement (bias 0.48 cm H2O). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that EIT could aid clinicians in making personalized and reasoned choices in setting the PEEP for subjects with ARDS.

Effects on mechanical power of different devices used for inhaled sedation in a bench model of protective ventilation in ICU.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled sedation during invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has received increasing attention. However, inhaled sedation devices increase dead-space ventilation and an undesirable effect is the increase in minute ventilation needed to maintain CO2 removal. A consequence of raising minute ventilation is an increase in mechanical power (MP) that can promote lung injury. However, the effect of inhaled sedation devices on MP remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a bench study to assess and compare the effects of three devices delivering inhaled sevoflurane currently available in ICU (AnaConDa-50 mL (ANA-50), AnaConDa-100 mL (ANA-100), and MIRUS) on MP by using a test lung model set with three compliances (20, 40, and 60 mL/cmH2O). We simulated lung-protective ventilation using a low tidal volume and two levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (5 and 15 cmH2O) under ambient temperature and dry conditions. Following the insertion of the devices, either the respiratory rate or tidal volume was increased in 15%-steps until end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) returned to the baseline value. MP was calculated at baseline and after EtCO2 correction using a simplified equation. RESULTS: Following device insertion, the EtCO2 increase was significantly greater with MIRUS (+ 78 ± 13%) and ANA-100 (+ 100 ± 11%) than with ANA-50 (+ 49 ± 7%). After normalizing EtCO2 by adjusting minute ventilation, MP significantly increased by more than 50% with all inhaled sedation devices compared to controls. The lowest increase in MP was observed with ANA-50 (p < 0.05 versus ANA-100 and MIRUS). The Costa index, another parameter assessing the mechanical energy delivered to the lungs, calculated as driving pressure × 4 + respiratory rate, significantly increased by more than 20% in all experimental conditions. Additional experiments performed under body temperature, ambient pressure, and gas saturated with water vapor conditions, confirmed the main results with an increase in MP > 50% with all devices after normalizing EtCO2 by adjusting minute ventilation. CONCLUSION: Inhaled sedation devices substantially increased MP in this bench model of protective ventilation, which might limit their benefits in ARDS.

Comparison of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, prone position and supine mechanical ventilation for severely hypoxemic acute respiratory distress syndrome: a network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with PaO2/FiO2 < 80 mmHg is a life-threatening condition. The optimal management strategy is unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of low tidal volumes (Vt), moderate Vt, prone ventilation, and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) on mortality in severe ARDS. METHODS: We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants who had severe ARDS and met eligibility criteria for VV-ECMO or had PaO2/FiO2 < 80 mmHg. We applied the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to discern the relative effect of interventions on mortality and the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Ten RCTs including 812 participants with severe ARDS were eligible. VV-ECMO reduces mortality compared to low Vt (risk ratio [RR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.99, moderate certainty) and compared to moderate Vt (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.98, low certainty). Prone ventilation reduces mortality compared to moderate Vt (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93, high certainty) and compared to low Vt (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63-1.02, moderate certainty). We found no difference in the network comparison of VV-ECMO compared to prone ventilation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.26), but inferences were based solely on indirect comparisons with very low certainty due to very wide confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with ARDS and severe hypoxia, both VV-ECMO (low to moderate certainty evidence) and prone ventilation (moderate to high certainty evidence) improve mortality relative to low and moderate Vt strategies. The impact of VV-ECMO versus prone ventilation remains uncertain.

Impact of intensive prone position therapy on outcomes in intubated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Previous retrospective research has shown that maintaining prone positioning (PP) for an average of 40 h is associated with an increase of survival rates in intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study aims to determine whether a cumulative PP duration of more than 32 h during the first 2 days of intensive care unit (ICU) admission is associated with increased survival compared to a cumulative PP duration of 32 h or less. METHODS: This study is an ancillary analysis from a previous large international observational study involving intubated patients placed in PP in the first 48 h of ICU admission in 149 ICUs across France, Belgium and Switzerland. Given that PP is recommended for a 16-h daily duration, intensive PP was defined as a cumulated duration of more than 32 h during the first 48 h, whereas standard PP was defined as a duration equal to or less than 32 h. Patients were followed-up for 90 days. The primary outcome was mortality at day 60. An Inverse Probability Censoring Weighting (IPCW) Cox model including a target emulation trial method was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Out of 2137 intubated patients, 753 were placed in PP during the first 48 h of ICU admission. The intensive PP group (n = 79) had a median PP duration of 36 h, while standard PP group (n = 674) had a median of 16 h during the first 48 h. Sixty-day mortality rate in the intensive PP group was 39.2% compared to 38.7% in the standard PP group (p = 0.93). Twenty-eight-day and 90-day mortality as well as the ventilator-free days until day 28 were similar in both groups. After IPCW, there was no significant difference in mortality at day 60 between the two-study groups (HR 0.95 [0.52-1.74], p = 0.87 and HR 1.1 [0.77-1.57], p = 0.61 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This secondary analysis of a large multicenter European cohort of intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 found that intensive PP during the first 48 h did not provide a survival benefit compared to standard PP.