Dataset Information

Effect of a Lower vs Higher Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategy on Ventilator-Free Days in ICU Patients Without ARDS: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

It is uncertain whether invasive ventilation can use lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Objective

To determine whether a lower PEEP strategy is noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy regarding duration of mechanical ventilation at 28 days.

Design, setting, and participants

Noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted from October 26, 2017, through December 17, 2019, in 8 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands among 980 patients without ARDS expected not to be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation. Final follow-up was conducted in March 2020.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive invasive ventilation using either lower PEEP, consisting of the lowest PEEP level between 0 and 5 cm H2O (n = 476), or higher PEEP, consisting of a PEEP level of 8 cm H2O (n = 493).

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at day 28, with a noninferiority margin for the difference in ventilator-free days at day 28 of -10%. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital lengths of stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; development of ARDS, pneumonia, pneumothorax, severe atelectasis, severe hypoxemia, or need for rescue therapies for hypoxemia; and days with use of vasopressors or sedation.

Results

Among 980 patients who were randomized, 969 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 66 [interquartile range {IQR}, 56-74] years; 246 [36%] women). At day 28, 476 patients in the lower PEEP group had a median of 18 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) and 493 patients in the higher PEEP group had a median of 17 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) (mean ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-∞; P = .007 for noninferiority), and the lower boundary of the 95% CI was within the noninferiority margin. Occurrence of severe hypoxemia was 20.6% vs 17.6% (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90-1.51; P = .99) and need for rescue strategy was 19.7% vs 14.6% (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79; adjusted P = .54) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. Mortality at 28 days was 38.4% vs 42.0% (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P = .99) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes.

Conclusions and relevance

Among patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours, a lower PEEP strategy was noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy with regard to the number of ventilator-free days at day 28. These findings support the use of lower PEEP in patients without ARDS.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167580.

SUBMITTER: Writing Committee and Steering Committee for the RELAx Collaborative Group

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7726701 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIt remains uncertain whether invasive ventilation should use low tidal volumes in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).ObjectiveTo determine whether a low tidal volume ventilation strategy is more effective than an intermediate tidal volume strategy.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2014, through August 20, 2017, including patients without ARDS expected to not be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation from 6 intensive care units in the Netherlands.InterventionsInvasive ventilation using low tidal volumes (n = 477) or intermediate tidal volumes (n = 484).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28. Secondary outcomes included length of ICU and hospital stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; and development of ARDS, pneumonia, severe atelectasis, or pneumothorax.ResultsIn total, 961 patients (65% male), with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-76), were enrolled. At day 28, 475 patients in the low tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26), and 480 patients in the intermediate tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26) (mean difference, -0.27 [95% CI, -1.74 to 1.19]; P = .71). There was no significant difference in ICU (median, 6 vs 6 days; 0.39 [-1.09 to 1.89]; P = .58) and hospital (median, 14 vs 15 days; -0.60 [-3.52 to 2.31]; P = .68) length of stay or 28-day (34.9% vs 32.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 [0.90 to 1.40]; P = .30) and 90-day (39.1% vs 37.8%; HR, 1.07 [0.87 to 1.31]; P = .54) mortality. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients developing the following adverse events: ARDS (3.8% vs 5.0%; risk ratio [RR], 0.86 [0.59 to 1.24]; P = .38), pneumonia (4.2% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.07 [0.78 to 1.47]; P = .67), severe atelectasis (11.4% vs 11.2%; RR, 1.00 [0.81 to 1.23]; P = .94), and pneumothorax (1.8% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.16 [0.73 to 1.84]; P = .55).Conclusions and relevanceIn patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours of randomization, a low tidal volume strategy did not result in a greater number of ventilator-free days than an intermediate tidal volume strategy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02153294.

Project description:BackgroundIn ARDS patients, changes in respiratory mechanical properties and ventilatory settings can cause incomplete lung deflation at end-expiration. Both can promote dynamic hyperinflation and intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The aim of this study was to investigate, in a large population of ARDS patients, the presence of intrinsic PEEP, possible associated factors (patients' characteristics and ventilator settings), and the effects of two different external PEEP levels on the intrinsic PEEP.MethodsWe made a secondary analysis of published data. Patients were ventilated with a tidal volume of 6-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight, sedated, and paralyzed. After a recruitment maneuver, a PEEP trial was run at 5 and 15 cmH2O, and partitioned mechanics measurements were collected after 20 min of stabilization. Lung computed tomography scans were taken at 5 and 45 cmH2O. Patients were classified into two groups according to whether or not they had intrinsic PEEP at the end of an expiratory pause.ResultsWe enrolled 217 sedated, paralyzed patients: 87 (40%) had intrinsic PEEP with a median of 1.1 [1.0-2.3] cmH2O at 5 cmH2O of PEEP. The intrinsic PEEP significantly decreased with higher PEEP (1.1 [1.0-2.3] vs 0.6 [0.0-1.0] cmH2O; p < 0.001). The applied tidal volume was significantly lower (480 [430-540] vs 520 [445-600] mL at 5 cmH2O of PEEP; 480 [430-540] vs 510 [430-590] mL at 15 cmH2O) in patients with intrinsic PEEP, while the respiratory rate was significantly higher (18 [15-20] vs 15 [13-19] bpm at 5 cmH2O of PEEP; 18 [15-20] vs 15 [13-19] bpm at 15 cmH2O). At both PEEP levels, the total airway resistance and compliance of the respiratory system were not different in patients with and without intrinsic PEEP. The total lung gas volume and lung recruitability were also not different between patients with and without intrinsic PEEP (respectively 961 [701-1535] vs 973 [659-1433] mL and 15 [0-32] % vs 22 [0-36] %).ConclusionsIn sedated, paralyzed ARDS patients without a known obstructive disease, the amount of intrinsic PEEP during lung-protective ventilation is negligible and does not influence respiratory mechanical properties.

Project description:IntroductionMechanical ventilation with high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH), but the role of PEEP in minimizing lung injury remains controversial. We hypothesized that in the presence of acute lung injury (ALI) with IAH: 1) higher PEEP levels improve pulmonary morphofunction and minimize lung injury; and 2) the biological effects of higher PEEP are more effective in extrapulmonary (exp) than pulmonary (p) ALI.MethodsIn 48 adult male Wistar rats, ALIp and ALIexp were induced by Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide intratracheally and intraperitoneally, respectively. After 24 hours, animals were anesthetized and mechanically ventilated (tidal volume of 6 mL/kg). IAH (15 mmHg) was induced and rats randomly assigned to PEEP of 5 (PEEP5), 7 (PEEP7) or 10 (PEEP10) cmH2O for 1 hour.ResultsIn both ALIp and ALIexp, higher PEEP levels improved oxygenation. PEEP10 increased alveolar hyperinflation and epithelial cell damage compared to PEEP5, independent of ALI etiology. In ALIp, PEEP7 and PEEP10 increased lung elastance compared to PEEP5 (4.3 ± 0.7 and 4.3 ± 0.9 versus 3.1 ± 0.3 cmH2O/mL, respectively, P <0.01), without changes in alveolar collapse, interleukin-6, caspase-3, type III procollagen, receptor for advanced glycation end-products, and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 expressions. Moreover, PEEP10 increased diaphragmatic injury compared to PEEP5. In ALIexp, PEEP7 decreased lung elastance and alveolar collapse compared to PEEP5 (2.3 ± 0.5 versus 3.6 ± 0.7 cmH2O/mL, P <0.02, and 27.2 (24.7 to 36.8) versus 44.2 (39.7 to 56.9)%, P <0.05, respectively), while PEEP7 and PEEP10 increased interleukin-6 and type III procollagen expressions, as well as type II epithelial cell damage compared to PEEP5.ConclusionsIn the current models of ALI with IAH, in contrast to our primary hypothesis, higher PEEP is more effective in ALIp than ALIexp as demonstrated by the activation of biological markers. Therefore, higher PEEP should be used cautiously in the presence of IAH and ALI, mainly in ALIexp.

Project description:BackgroundPositive-pressure mechanical ventilation is an essential therapeutic intervention, yet it causes the clinical syndrome known as ventilator-induced lung injury. Various lung protective mechanical ventilation strategies have attempted to reduce or prevent ventilator-induced lung injury but few modalities have proven effective. A model that isolates the contribution of mechanical ventilation on the development of acute lung injury is needed to better understand biologic mechanisms that lead to ventilator-induced lung injury.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of positive end-expiratory pressure and recruitment maneuvers in reducing lung injury in a ventilator-induced lung injury murine model in short- and longer-term ventilation.Methods5-12 week-old female BALB/c mice (n = 85) were anesthetized, placed on mechanical ventilation for either 2 hrs or 4 hrs with either low tidal volume (8 ml/kg) or high tidal volume (15 ml/kg) with or without positive end-expiratory pressure and recruitment maneuvers.ResultsAlteration of the alveolar-capillary barrier was noted at 2 hrs of high tidal volume ventilation. Standardized histology scores, influx of bronchoalveolar lavage albumin, proinflammatory cytokines, and absolute neutrophils were significantly higher in the high-tidal volume ventilation group at 4 hours of ventilation. Application of positive end-expiratory pressure resulted in significantly decreased standardized histology scores and bronchoalveolar absolute neutrophil counts at low- and high-tidal volume ventilation, respectively. Recruitment maneuvers were essential to maintain pulmonary compliance at both 2 and 4 hrs of ventilation.ConclusionsSigns of ventilator-induced lung injury are evident soon after high tidal volume ventilation (as early as 2 hours) and lung injury worsens with longer-term ventilation (4 hrs). Application of positive end-expiratory pressure and recruitment maneuvers are protective against worsening VILI across all time points. Dynamic compliance can be used guide the frequency of recruitment maneuvers to help ameloriate ventilator-induced lung injury.

Project description:ImportanceAdjusting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to offset pleural pressure might attenuate lung injury and improve patient outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).ObjectiveTo determine whether PEEP titration guided by esophageal pressure (PES), an estimate of pleural pressure, was more effective than empirical high PEEP-fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) in moderate to severe ARDS.Design, setting, and participantsPhase 2 randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 hospitals in North America. Two hundred mechanically ventilated patients aged 16 years and older with moderate to severe ARDS (Pao2:Fio2 ≤200 mm Hg) were enrolled between October 31, 2012, and September 14, 2017; long-term follow-up was completed July 30, 2018.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to PES-guided PEEP (n = 102) or empirical high PEEP-Fio2 (n = 98). All participants received low tidal volumes.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a ranked composite score incorporating death and days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors through day 28. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors, and need for rescue therapy.ResultsTwo hundred patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 56 [16] years; 46% female) and completed 28-day follow-up. The primary composite end point was not significantly different between treatment groups (probability of more favorable outcome with PES-guided PEEP: 49.6% [95% CI, 41.7% to 57.5%]; P = .92). At 28 days, 33 of 102 patients (32.4%) assigned to PES-guided PEEP and 30 of 98 patients (30.6%) assigned to empirical PEEP-Fio2 died (risk difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -11.1% to 14.6%]; P = .88). Days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors was not significantly different (median [interquartile range]: 22 [15-24] vs 21 [16.5-24] days; median difference, 0 [95% CI, -1 to 2] days; P = .85). Patients assigned to PES-guided PEEP were significantly less likely to receive rescue therapy (4/102 [3.9%] vs 12/98 [12.2%]; risk difference, -8.3% [95% CI, -15.8% to -0.8%]; P = .04). None of the 7 other prespecified secondary clinical end points were significantly different. Adverse events included gross barotrauma, which occurred in 6 patients with PES-guided PEEP and 5 patients with empirical PEEP-Fio2.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with moderate to severe ARDS, PES-guided PEEP, compared with empirical high PEEP-Fio2, resulted in no significant difference in death and days free from mechanical ventilation. These findings do not support PES-guided PEEP titration in ARDS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01681225.