Dataset Information

Lung protective mechanical ventilation and two year survival in patients with acute lung injury: prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the association of volume limited and pressure limited (lung protective) mechanical ventilation with two year survival in patients with acute lung injury.

Design

Prospective cohort study.

Setting

13 intensive care units at four hospitals in Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Participants

485 consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with acute lung injury.

Main outcome measure

Two year survival after onset of acute lung injury.

Results

485 patients contributed data for 6240 eligible ventilator settings, as measured twice daily (median of eight eligible ventilator settings per patient; 41% of which adhered to lung protective ventilation). Of these patients, 311 (64%) died within two years. After adjusting for the total duration of ventilation and other relevant covariates, each additional ventilator setting adherent to lung protective ventilation was associated with a 3% decrease in the risk of mortality over two years (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 0.99, P=0.002). Compared with no adherence, the estimated absolute risk reduction in two year mortality for a prototypical patient with 50% adherence to lung protective ventilation was 4.0% (0.8% to 7.2%, P=0.012) and with 100% adherence was 7.8% (1.6% to 14.0%, P=0.011).

Conclusions

Lung protective mechanical ventilation was associated with a substantial long term survival benefit for patients with acute lung injury. Greater use of lung protective ventilation in routine clinical practice could reduce long term mortality in patients with acute lung injury.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00300248.

SUBMITTER: Needham DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3320566 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Most prognostic studies in acute stroke patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation are outdated and have limitations such as single-center retrospective designs. We aimed to study the association of ICU admission factors, including the reason for intubation, with 1-year survival of acute stroke patients requiring mechanical ventilation. METHODS:We conducted a secondary data use analysis of a prospective multicenter database (14 ICUs) between 1997 and 2016 on consecutive ICU stroke patients requiring mechanical ventilation at admission. We excluded patients with stroke of traumatic origin, subdural hematoma or cerebral venous thrombosis. The primary outcome was survival 1 year after ICU admission. Factors associated with the primary outcome were identified using a multivariable Cox model stratified on inclusion center. RESULTS:We identified 419 patients (age 68 [58-76] years, males 60%) with a Glasgow coma score (GCS) of 4 [3-8] at admission. Stroke subtypes were acute ischemic stroke (AIS, 46%), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH, 42%) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH, 12%). At 1 year, 96 (23%) patients were alive. Factors independently associated with decreased 1-year survival were ICH and SAH stroke subtypes, a lower GCS score at admission, a higher non-neurological SOFA score. Conversely, patients receiving acute-phase therapy had improved 1-year survival. Intubation for acute respiratory failure or coma was associated with comparable survival hazard ratios, whereas intubation for seizure was not associated with a worse prognosis than for elective procedure. Survival did not improve over the study period, but patients included in the most recent period had more comorbidities and presented higher severity scores at admission. CONCLUSIONS:In acute stroke patients requiring mechanical ventilation, the reason for intubation and the opportunity to receive acute-phase stroke therapy were independently associated with 1-year survival. These variables could assist in the decision process regarding the initiation of mechanical ventilation in acute stroke patients.

Project description:BackgroundSurvival of patients with acute lung injury or the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been improved by ventilation with small tidal volumes and the use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP); however, the optimal level of PEEP has been difficult to determine. In this pilot study, we estimated transpulmonary pressure with the use of esophageal balloon catheters. We reasoned that the use of pleural-pressure measurements, despite the technical limitations to the accuracy of such measurements, would enable us to find a PEEP value that could maintain oxygenation while preventing lung injury due to repeated alveolar collapse or overdistention.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with acute lung injury or ARDS to undergo mechanical ventilation with PEEP adjusted according to measurements of esophageal pressure (the esophageal-pressure-guided group) or according to the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network standard-of-care recommendations (the control group). The primary end point was improvement in oxygenation. The secondary end points included respiratory-system compliance and patient outcomes.ResultsThe study reached its stopping criterion and was terminated after 61 patients had been enrolled. The ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen at 72 hours was 88 mm Hg higher in the esophageal-pressure-guided group than in the control group (95% confidence interval, 78.1 to 98.3; P=0.002). This effect was persistent over the entire follow-up time (at 24, 48, and 72 hours; P=0.001 by repeated-measures analysis of variance). Respiratory-system compliance was also significantly better at 24, 48, and 72 hours in the esophageal-pressure-guided group (P=0.01 by repeated-measures analysis of variance).ConclusionsAs compared with the current standard of care, a ventilator strategy using esophageal pressures to estimate the transpulmonary pressure significantly improves oxygenation and compliance. Multicenter clinical trials are needed to determine whether this approach should be widely adopted. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00127491.)

Project description:Driving pressure (?Prs) across the respiratory system is suggested as the strongest predictor of hospital mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We wonder whether this result is related to the range of tidal volume (VT). Therefore, we investigated ?Prs in two trials in which strict lung-protective mechanical ventilation was applied in ARDS. Our working hypothesis was that ?Prs is a risk factor for mortality just like compliance (Crs) or plateau pressure (Pplat,rs) of the respiratory system.We performed secondary analysis of data from 787 ARDS patients enrolled in two independent randomized controlled trials evaluating distinct adjunctive techniques while they were ventilated as in the low VT arm of the ARDSnet trial. For this study, we used VT, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), Pplat,rs, Crs, ?Prs, and respiratory rate recorded 24 hours after randomization, and compared them between survivors and nonsurvivors at day 90. Patients were followed for 90 days after inclusion. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used for mortality at day 90. If colinearity between ?Prs, Crs, and Pplat,rs was verified, specific Cox models were used for each of them.Both trials enrolled 805 patients of whom 787 had day-1 data available, and 533 of these survived. In the univariate analysis, ?Prs averaged 13.7?±?3.7 and 12.8?±?3.7 cmH2O (P?=?0.002) in nonsurvivors and survivors, respectively. Colinearity between ?Prs, Crs and Pplat,rs, which was expected as these variables are mathematically coupled, was statistically significant. Hazard ratios from the Cox models for day-90 mortality were 1.05 (1.02-1.08) (P?=?0.005), 1.05 (1.01-1.08) (P?=?0.008) and 0.985 (0.972-0.985) (P?=?0.029) for ?Prs, Pplat,rs and Crs, respectively. PEEP and VT were not associated with death in any model.When ventilating patients with low VT, ?Prs is a risk factor for death in ARDS patients, as is Pplat,rs or Crs. As our data originated from trials from which most ARDS patients were excluded due to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, these findings must be validated in independent observational studies in patients ventilated with a lung protective strategy.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00299650 . Registered 6 March 2006 for the Acurasys trial. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00527813 . Registered 10 September 2007 for the Proseva trial.