Comparison of limited driving pressure ventilation and low tidal volume strategies in adults with acute respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) presents a grave risk to acute respiratory failure patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation has been advocated as a protective strategy against VILI. However, the effectiveness of limited driving pressure (plateau pressure minus positive end-expiratory pressure) remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the efficacy of LTV against limited driving pressure in preventing VILI in adults with respiratory failure. DESIGN: A single-centre, prospective, open-labelled, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This study was executed in medical intensive care units at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. We enrolled acute respiratory failure patients undergoing intubation and mechanical ventilation. They were randomized in a 1:1 allocation to limited driving pressure (LDP; ⩽15 cmH2O) or LTV (⩽8 mL/kg of predicted body weight). The primary outcome was the acute lung injury (ALI) score 7 days post-enrolment. RESULTS: From July 2019 to December 2020, 126 patients participated, with 63 each in the LDP and LTV groups. The cohorts had the mean (standard deviation) ages of 60.5 (17.6) and 60.9 (17.9) years, respectively, and they exhibited comparable baseline characteristics. The primary reasons for intubation were acute hypoxic respiratory failure (LDP 49.2%, LTV 63.5%) and shock-related respiratory failure (LDP 39.7%, LTV 30.2%). No significant difference emerged in the primary outcome: the median (interquartile range) ALI scores for LDP and LTV were 1.75 (1.00-2.67) and 1.75 (1.25-2.25), respectively (p = 0.713). Twenty-eight-day mortality rates were comparable: LDP 34.9% (22/63), LTV 31.7% (20/63), relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.57, p = 0.705. Incidences of newly developed acute respiratory distress syndrome also aligned: LDP 14.3% (9/63), LTV 20.6% (13/63), RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.22, p = 0.348. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with acute respiratory failure, the efficacy of LDP and LTV in averting lung injury 7 days post-mechanical ventilation was indistinguishable. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov database (identification number NCT04035915).

Limited breathing pressure or low amount of air given to the lung; which one is better for adults who need breathing help by ventilator machineWe conducted this research at Siriraj Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, aiming to compare two ways of helping patients with breathing problems. We studied 126 patients who were randomly put into two groups. One group received a method where the pressure during breathing was limited (limited driving pressure: LDP), and the other group got a method where the amount of air given to the lungs was kept low (low tidal volume: LTV). We checked how bad the lung injury was at seven days later. The results showed that there was no difference between the two methods. Both ways of helping patients breathe had similar outcomes, and neither was significantly better than the other in preventing lung problems. The study suggests that both approaches work about the same for patients who need help with breathing using a machine.

From pressure to tension: a model of damaging inflation stress.

Although the stretch that generates ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) occurs within the peripheral tissue that encloses the alveolar space, airway pressures and volumes monitor the gas within the interior core of the lung unit, not its cellular enclosure. Measured pressures (plateau pressure, positive end-expiratory pressure, and driving pressure) and tidal volumes paint a highly relevant but incomplete picture of forces that act on the lung tissues themselves. Convenient and clinically useful measures of the airspace, such as pressure and volume, neglect the partitioning of tidal elastic energy into the increments of tension and surface area that constitute actual stress and strain at the alveolar margins. More sharply focused determinants of VILI require estimates of absolute alveolar dimension and morphology and the lung's unstressed volume at rest. We present a highly simplified but informative mathematical model that translates the radial energy of pressure and volume of the airspace into its surface energy components. In doing so it elaborates conceptual relationships that highlight the forces tending to cause end-tidal hyperinflation of aerated units within the 'baby lung' of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Mechanical Power of Ventilation: From Computer to Clinical Implications.

Mechanical ventilation is a lifesaving intervention that may also induce further lung injury by exerting excessive mechanical forces on susceptible lung tissue, a phenomenon termed ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). The concept of mechanical power (MP) aims to unify in one single variable the contribution of the different ventilatory parameters that could induce VILI by measuring the energy transfer to the lung over time. Despite an increasing amount of evidence demonstrating that high MP values can be associated with VILI development in experimental studies, the evidence regarding the association of MP and clinical outcomes remains controversial. In the present review, we describe the different determinants of VILI, the concept and computation of MP, and discuss the experimental and clinical studies related to MP. Currently, due to different limitations, the clinical application of MP is debatable. Further clinical studies are required to enhance our understanding of the relationship between MP and the development of VILI, as well as its potential impact on clinical outcomes.

Mechanical ventilation during pediatric extracorporeal life support.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the role of ventilator induced lung injury (VILI) and patient self-inflicted lung injury in ventilated children supported on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). RECENT FINDINGS: While extracorporeal life support is used routinely used every day around the globe to support neonatal, pediatric, and adult patients with refractory cardiac and/or respiratory failure, the optimal approach to mechanical ventilation, especially for those with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), remains unknown and controversial. Given the lack of definitive data in this population, one must rely on available evidence in those with ARDS not supported with ECMO and extrapolate adult observations. Ventilatory management should include, as a minimum standard, limiting inspiratory and driving pressures, providing a sufficient level of positive end-expiratory pressure, and setting a low rate to reduce mechanical power. Allowing for spontaneous breathing and use of pulmonary specific ancillary treatment modalities must be individualized, while balancing the risk and benefits. Future studies delineating the best strategies for optimizing MV during pediatric extracorporeal life support are much needed. SUMMARY: Future investigations will hopefully provide the needed evidence and better understanding of the overall goal of reducing mechanical ventilation intensity to decrease risk for VILI and promote lung recovery for those supported with ECMO.

Asynchrony Injures Lung and Diaphragm in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-ventilator asynchrony is often observed during mechanical ventilation and is associated with higher mortality. We hypothesized that patient-ventilator asynchrony causes lung and diaphragm injury and dysfunction. DESIGN: Prospective randomized animal study. SETTING: University research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Eighteen New Zealand White rabbits. INTERVENTIONS: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) model was established by depleting surfactants. Each group (assist control, breath stacking, and reverse triggering) was simulated by phrenic nerve stimulation. The effects of each group on lung function, lung injury (wet-to-dry lung weight ratio, total protein, and interleukin-6 in bronchoalveolar lavage), diaphragm function (diaphragm force generation curve), and diaphragm injury (cross-sectional area of diaphragm muscle fibers, histology) were measured. Diaphragm RNA sequencing was performed using breath stacking and assist control ( n = 2 each). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Inspiratory effort generated by phrenic nerve stimulation was small and similar among groups (esophageal pressure swing ≈ -2.5 cm H 2 O). Breath stacking resulted in the largest tidal volume (>10 mL/kg) and highest inspiratory transpulmonary pressure, leading to worse oxygenation, worse lung compliance, and lung injury. Reverse triggering did not cause lung injury. No asynchrony events were observed in assist control, whereas eccentric contractions occurred in breath stacking and reverse triggering, but more frequently in breath stacking. Breath stacking and reverse triggering significantly reduced diaphragm force generation. Diaphragmatic histology revealed that the area fraction of abnormal muscle was ×2.5 higher in breath stacking (vs assist control) and ×2.1 higher in reverse triggering (vs assist control). Diaphragm RNA sequencing analysis revealed that genes associated with muscle differentiation and contraction were suppressed, whereas cytokine- and chemokine-mediated proinflammatory responses were activated in breath stacking versus assist control. CONCLUSIONS: Breath stacking caused lung and diaphragm injury, whereas reverse triggering caused diaphragm injury. Thus, careful monitoring and management of patient-ventilator asynchrony may be important to minimize lung and diaphragm injury from spontaneous breathing in ARDS.

Management of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a primer.

This narrative review explores the physiology and evidence-based management of patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and refractory hypoxemia, with a focus on mechanical ventilation, adjunctive therapies, and veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO). Severe ARDS cases increased dramatically worldwide during the Covid-19 pandemic and carry a high mortality. The mainstay of treatment to improve survival and ventilator-free days is proning, conservative fluid management, and lung protective ventilation. Ventilator settings should be individualized when possible to improve patient-ventilator synchrony and reduce ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Positive end-expiratory pressure can be individualized by titrating to best respiratory system compliance, or by using advanced methods, such as electrical impedance tomography or esophageal manometry. Adjustments to mitigate high driving pressure and mechanical power, two possible drivers of VILI, may be further beneficial. In patients with refractory hypoxemia, salvage modes of ventilation such as high frequency oscillatory ventilation and airway pressure release ventilation are additional options that may be appropriate in select patients. Adjunctive therapies also may be applied judiciously, such as recruitment maneuvers, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockers, or glucocorticoids, and may improve oxygenation, but do not clearly reduce mortality. In select, refractory cases, the addition of V-V ECMO improves gas exchange and modestly improves survival by allowing for lung rest. In addition to VILI, patients with severe ARDS are at risk for complications including acute cor pulmonale, physical debility, and neurocognitive deficits. Even among the most severe cases, ARDS is a heterogeneous disease, and future studies are needed to identify ARDS subgroups to individualize therapies and advance care.

Practical assessment of risk of VILI from ventilating power: a conceptual model.

At the bedside, assessing the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) requires parameters readily measured by the clinician. For this purpose, driving pressure (DP) and end-inspiratory static 'plateau' pressure ([Formula: see text]) of the tidal cycle are unquestionably useful but lack key information relating to associated volume changes and cumulative strain. 'Mechanical power', a clinical term which incorporates all dissipated ('non-elastic') and conserved ('elastic') energy components of inflation, has drawn considerable interest as a comprehensive 'umbrella' variable that accounts for the influence of ventilating frequency per minute as well as the energy cost per tidal cycle. Yet, like the raw values of DP and [Formula: see text], the absolute levels of energy and power by themselves may not carry sufficiently precise information to guide safe ventilatory practice. In previous work we introduced the concept of 'damaging energy per cycle'. Here we describe how-if only in concept-the bedside clinician might gauge the theoretical hazard of delivered energy using easily observed static circuit pressures ([Formula: see text] and positive end expiratory pressure) and an estimate of the maximally tolerated (threshold) non-dissipated ('elastic') airway pressure that reflects the pressure component applied to the alveolar tissues. Because its core inputs are already in use and familiar in daily practice, the simplified mathematical model we propose here for damaging energy and power may promote deeper comprehension of the key factors in play to improve lung protective ventilation.

Respiratory Monitoring During Mechanical Ventilation: The Present and the Future.

The increased application of mechanical ventilation, the recognition of its harms and the interest in individualization raised the need for an effective monitoring. An increasing number of monitoring tools and modalities were introduced over the past 2 decades with growing insight into asynchrony, lung and chest wall mechanics, respiratory effort and drive. They should be used in a complementary rather than a standalone way. A sound strategy can guide a reduction in adverse effects like ventilator-induced lung injury, ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction, patient-ventilator asynchrony and helps early weaning from the ventilator. However, the diversity, complexity, lack of expertise, and associated cost make formulating the appropriate monitoring strategy a challenge for clinicians. Most often, a big amount of data is fed to the clinicians making interpretation difficult. Therefore, it is fundamental for intensivists to be aware of the principle, advantages, and limits of each tool. This analytic review includes a simplified narrative of the commonly used basic and advanced respiratory monitors along with their limits and future prospective.

A review of the utility of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in burn and trauma ICU patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose was to examine the utility of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) in trauma and burn ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation, and provide recommendations on its use. RECENT FINDINGS: HFOV may be beneficial in burn patients with smoke inhalation injury with or without acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), as it improves oxygenation and minimizes ventilator-induced lung injury. It also may have a role in improving oxygenation in trauma patients with blast lung injury, pulmonary contusions, pneumothorax with massive air leak, and ARDS; however, the mortality benefit is unknown. SUMMARY: Although some studies have shown promise and improved outcomes associated with HFOV, we recommend its use as a rescue modality for patients who have failed conventional ventilation.

Hypothesis-driven modeling of the human lung-ventilator system: A characterization tool for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome research.

Mechanical ventilation is an essential tool in the management of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), but it exposes patients to the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). The human lung-ventilator system (LVS) involves the interaction of complex anatomy with a mechanical apparatus, which limits the ability of process-based models to provide individualized clinical support. This work proposes a hypothesis-driven strategy for LVS modeling in which robust personalization is achieved using a pre-defined parameter basis in a non-physiological model. Model inversion, here via windowed data assimilation, forges observed waveforms into interpretable parameter values that characterize the data rather than quantifying physiological processes. Accurate, model-based inference on human-ventilator data indicates model flexibility and utility over a variety of breath types, including those from dyssynchronous LVSs. Estimated parameters generate static characterizations of the data that are 50%-70% more accurate than breath-wise single-compartment model estimates. They also retain sufficient information to distinguish between the types of breath they represent. However, the fidelity and interpretability of model characterizations are tied to parameter definitions and model resolution. These additional factors must be considered in conjunction with the objectives of specific applications, such as identifying and tracking the development of human VILI.

Protective ventilation in a pig model of acute lung injury: timing is as important as pressure.

Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) is a significant risk for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Management of the patient with ARDS is currently dominated by the use of low tidal volume mechanical ventilation, the presumption being that this mitigates overdistension (OD) injury to the remaining normal lung tissue. Evidence exists, however, that it may be more important to avoid cyclic recruitment and derecruitment (RD) of lung units, although the relative roles of OD and RD in VILI remain unclear. Forty pigs had a heterogeneous lung injury induced by Tween instillation and were randomized into four groups (n = 10 each) with higher (↑) or lower (↓) levels of OD and/or RD imposed using airway pressure release ventilation (APRV). OD was increased by setting inspiratory airway pressure to 40 cmH2O and lessened with 28 cmH2O. RD was attenuated using a short duration of expiration (∼0.45 s) and increased with a longer duration (∼1.0 s). All groups developed mild ARDS following injury. RD ↑ OD↑ caused the greatest degree of lung injury as determined by [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] ratio (226.1 ± 41.4 mmHg). RD ↑ OD↓ ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text]= 333.9 ± 33.1 mmHg) and RD ↓ OD↑ ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] = 377.4 ± 43.2 mmHg) were both moderately injurious, whereas RD ↓ OD↓ ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] = 472.3 ± 22.2 mmHg; P < 0.05) was least injurious. Both tidal volume and driving pressure were essentially identical in the RD ↑ OD↓ and RD ↓ OD↑ groups. We, therefore, conclude that considerations of expiratory time may be at least as important as pressure for safely ventilating the injured lung.NEW & NOTEWORTHY In a large animal model of ARDS, recruitment/derecruitment caused greater VILI than overdistension, whereas both mechanisms together caused severe lung damage. These findings suggest that eliminating cyclic recruitment and derecruitment during mechanical ventilation should be a preeminent management goal for the patient with ARDS. The airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) mode of mechanical ventilation can achieve this if delivered with an expiratory duration (TLow) that is brief enough to prevent derecruitment at end expiration.

Energy dissipation during expiration and ventilator-induced lung injury: an experimental animal study.

The amount of energy delivered to the respiratory system is recognized as a cause of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). How energy dissipation within the lung parenchyma causes damage is still a matter of debate. Expiratory flow control has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the energy dissipated into the respiratory system during expiration and, possibly, VILI. We studied 22 healthy pigs (29 ± 2 kg), which were randomized into a control (n = 11) and a valve group (n = 11), where the expiratory flow was controlled through a variable resistor. Both groups were ventilated with the same tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and inspiratory flow. Electric impedance tomography was continuously acquired. At completion, lung weight, wet-to-dry ratios, and histology were evaluated. The total mechanical power was similar in the control and valve groups (8.54 ± 0.83 J·min-1 and 8.42 ± 0.54 J·min-1, respectively, P = 0.552). The total energy dissipated within the whole system (circuit + respiratory system) was remarkably different (4.34 ± 0.66 vs. 2.62 ± 0.31 J/min, P < 0.001). However, most of this energy was dissipated across the endotracheal tube (2.87 ± 0.3 vs. 1.88 ± 0.2 J/min, P < 0.001). The amount dissipated into the respiratory system averaged 1.45 ± 0.5 in controls versus 0.73 ± 0.16 J·min-1 in the valve group, P < 0.001. Although respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, hemodynamics, wet-to-dry ratios, and histology were similar in the two groups, the decrease of end-expiratory lung impedance was significantly greater in the control group (P = 0.02). We conclude that with our experimental conditions, the reduction of energy dissipated in the respiratory system did not lead to appreciable differences in VILI.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Energy dissipation within the respiratory system is a factor promoting ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). In this animal study, we modulated the expiratory flow, reducing the energy dissipated in the system. However, this reduction happened mostly across the endotracheal tube, and only partly in the respiratory system. Therefore, in healthy lungs, the advantage in energy dissipation does not reduce VILI, but the advantages might be more relevant in diseased lungs under injurious ventilation.

The physiological underpinnings of life-saving respiratory support.

Treatment of respiratory failure has improved dramatically since the polio epidemic in the 1950s with the use of invasive techniques for respiratory support: mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal respiratory support. However, respiratory support is only a supportive therapy, designed to "buy time" while the disease causing respiratory failure abates. It ensures viable gas exchange and prevents cardiorespiratory collapse in the context of excessive loads. Because the use of invasive modalities of respiratory support is also associated with substantial harm, it remains the responsibility of the clinician to minimize such hazards. Direct iatrogenic consequences of mechanical ventilation include the risk to the lung (ventilator-induced lung injury) and the diaphragm (ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction and other forms of myotrauma). Adverse consequences on hemodynamics can also be significant. Indirect consequences (e.g., immobilization, sleep disruption) can have devastating long-term effects. Increasing awareness and understanding of these mechanisms of injury has led to a change in the philosophy of care with a shift from aiming to normalize gases toward minimizing harm. Lung (and more recently also diaphragm) protective ventilation strategies include the use of extracorporeal respiratory support when the risk of ventilation becomes excessive. This review provides an overview of the historical background of respiratory support, pathophysiology of respiratory failure and rationale for respiratory support, iatrogenic consequences from mechanical ventilation, specifics of the implementation of mechanical ventilation, and role of extracorporeal respiratory support. It highlights the need for appropriate monitoring to estimate risks and to individualize ventilation and sedation to provide safe respiratory support to each patient.

Physiological and Pathophysiological Consequences of Mechanical Ventilation.

Mechanical ventilation is a life-support system used to ensure blood gas exchange and to assist the respiratory muscles in ventilating the lung during the acute phase of lung disease or following surgery. Positive-pressure mechanical ventilation differs considerably from normal physiologic breathing. This may lead to several negative physiological consequences, both on the lungs and on peripheral organs. First, hemodynamic changes can affect cardiovascular performance, cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), and drainage of renal veins. Second, the negative effect of mechanical ventilation (compression stress) on the alveolar-capillary membrane and extracellular matrix may cause local and systemic inflammation, promoting lung and peripheral-organ injury. Third, intra-abdominal hypertension may further impair lung and peripheral-organ function during controlled and assisted ventilation. Mechanical ventilation should be optimized and personalized in each patient according to individual clinical needs. Multiple parameters must be adjusted appropriately to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), including: inspiratory stress (the respiratory system inspiratory plateau pressure); dynamic strain (the ratio between tidal volume and the end-expiratory lung volume, or inspiratory capacity); static strain (the end-expiratory lung volume determined by positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP]); driving pressure (the difference between the respiratory system inspiratory plateau pressure and PEEP); and mechanical power (the amount of mechanical energy imparted as a function of respiratory rate). More recently, patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) has been proposed as a potential mechanism promoting VILI. In the present chapter, we will discuss the physiological and pathophysiological consequences of mechanical ventilation and how to personalize mechanical ventilation parameters.