Effects of different positive end-expiratory pressure titration strategies on mechanical power during ultraprotective ventilation in ARDS patients treated with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A prospective interventional study.

PURPOSE: Ultraprotective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) reduces mechanical power (MP) through changes in positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP); however, the optimal approach to titrate PEEP is unknown. This study assesses the effects of three PEEP titration strategies on MP, hemodynamic parameters, and oxygen delivery in twenty ARDS patients with VV ECMO. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PEEP was titrated according to: (A) a PEEP of 10 cmH2O representing the lowest recommendation by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (PEEPELSO), (B) the highest static compliance of the respiratory system (PEEPCstat,RS), and (C) a target end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure of 0 cmH2O (PEEPPtpexp). RESULTS: PEEPELSO was lower compared to PEEPCstat,RS and PEEPPtpexp (10.0 ± 0.0 vs. 16.2 ± 4.7 cmH2O and 17.3 ± 4.0 cmH2O, p < 0.001 each, respectively). PEEPELSO reduced MP compared to PEEPCstat,RS and PEEPPtpexp (5.3 ± 1.3 vs. 6.8 ± 2.0 and 6.9 ± 2.3 J/min, p < 0.001 each, respectively). PEEPELSO resulted in less lung stress compared to PEEPCstat,RS (p = 0.011) and PEEPPtpexp (p < 0.001) and increased cardiac output and oxygen delivery (p < 0.001 each). CONCLUSIONS: An empirical PEEP of 10 cmH2O minimized MP, provided favorable hemodynamics, and increased oxygen delivery in ARDS patients treated with VV ECMO. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00013967). Registered 02/09/2018https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00013967.

Ultraprotective versus apneic ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a physiological study.

BACKGROUND: Even an ultraprotective ventilation strategy in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) might induce ventilator-induced lung injury and apneic ventilation with the sole application of positive end-expiratory pressure may, therefore, be an alternative ventilation strategy. We, therefore, compared the effects of ultraprotective ventilation with apneic ventilation on oxygenation, oxygen delivery, respiratory system mechanics, hemodynamics, strain, air distribution and recruitment of the lung parenchyma in ARDS patients with ECMO. METHODS: In a prospective, monocentric physiological study, 24 patients with severe ARDS managed with ECMO were ventilated using ultraprotective ventilation (tidal volume 3 ml/kg of predicted body weight) with a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) of 21%, 50% and 90%. Patients were then treated with apneic ventilation with analogous FiO2. The primary endpoint was the effect of the ventilation strategy on oxygenation and oxygen delivery. The secondary endpoints were mechanical power, stress, regional air distribution, lung recruitment and the resulting strain, evaluated by chest computed tomography, associated with the application of PEEP (apneic ventilation) and/or low VT (ultraprotective ventilation). RESULTS: Protective ventilation, compared to apneic ventilation, improved oxygenation (arterial partial pressure of oxygen, p < 0.001 with FiO2 of 50% and 90%) and reduced cardiac output. Both ventilation strategies preserved oxygen delivery independent of the FiO2. Protective ventilation increased driving pressure, stress, strain, mechanical power, as well as induced additional recruitment in the non-dependent lung compared to apneic ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe ARDS managed with ECMO, ultraprotective ventilation compared to apneic ventilation improved oxygenation, but increased stress, strain, and mechanical power. Apneic ventilation might be considered as one of the options in the initial phase of ECMO treatment in severe ARDS patients to facilitate lung rest and prevent ventilator-induced lung injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00013967). Registered 02/09/2018. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00013967 .

Effects of different positive end-expiratory pressure titration strategies during prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective interventional study.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning in combination with the application of low tidal volume and adequate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improves survival in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the effects of PEEP on end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (Ptpexp) during prone positioning require clarification. For this purpose, the effects of three different PEEP titration strategies on Ptpexp, respiratory mechanics, mechanical power, gas exchange, and hemodynamics were evaluated comparing supine and prone positioning. METHODS: In forty consecutive patients with moderate to severe ARDS protective ventilation with PEEP titrated according to three different titration strategies was evaluated during supine and prone positioning: (A) ARDS Network recommendations (PEEPARDSNetwork), (B) the lowest static elastance of the respiratory system (PEEPEstat,RS), and (C) targeting a positive Ptpexp (PEEPPtpexp). The primary endpoint was to analyze whether Ptpexp differed significantly according to PEEP titration strategy during supine and prone positioning. RESULTS: Ptpexp increased progressively with prone positioning compared with supine positioning as well as with PEEPEstat,RS and PEEPPtpexp compared with PEEPARDSNetwork (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). PEEP was lower during prone positioning with PEEPEstat,RS and PEEPPtpexp (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). During supine positioning, mechanical power increased progressively with PEEPEstat,RS and PEEPPtpexp compared with PEEPARDSNetwork, and prone positioning attenuated this effect (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). Prone compared with supine positioning significantly improved oxygenation (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001) while hemodynamics remained stable in both positions. CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning increased transpulmonary pressures while improving oxygenation and hemodynamics in patients with moderate to severe ARDS when PEEP was titrated according to the ARDS Network lower PEEP table. This PEEP titration strategy minimized parameters associated with ventilator-induced lung injury induction, such as transpulmonary driving pressure and mechanical power. We propose that a lower PEEP strategy (PEEPARDSNetwork) in combination with prone positioning may be part of a lung protective ventilation strategy in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00017449 ). Registered June 27, 2019. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00017449.

Procollagen I and III as Prognostic Markers in Patients Treated with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Prospective Observational Study.

Background: Procollagen peptides have been associated with lung fibroproliferation and poor outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Therefore, serum procollagen concentrations might have prognostic value in ARDS patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Methods: In a prospective cohort study, serum N-terminal procollagen I-peptide (PINP) and N-terminal procollagen III-peptide (PIIINP) concentrations in twenty-three consecutive patients with severe ARDS treated with ECMO were measured at the time of ECMO initiation and during the course of treatment. The predictive value of PINP and PIIINP at the time of ECMO initiation was tested with a univariable logistic regression and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: Thirteen patients survived to intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. Non-survivors had higher serum PINP and PIIINP concentrations at all points in time during the course of treatment. Serum PIIINP at the day of ECMO initiation showed an odds ratio of 1.37 (95% CI 1.10-1.89, p = 0.017) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of 0.87 (95% CI 0.69-1.00, p = 0.0029) for death during the course of treatment. Conclusions: PINP and PIIINP concentrations differ between survivors and non-survivors in ARDS treated with ECMO. This exploratory hypothesis generating study suggests an association between PIIINP serum concentrations at ECMO initiation and an unfavorable clinical outcome.