Dataset Information

Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the association of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), as opposed to lower PEEP, with hospital mortality in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for reasons other than acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Methods

We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception until June 16, 2021 with no language restrictions. In addition, a research-in-progress database and grey literature were searched.

Results

We identified 22 RCTs (2225 patients) comparing higher PEEP (1007 patients) with lower PEEP (991 patients). No statistically significant association between higher PEEP and hospital mortality was observed (risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.16; I² = 0%, p = 0.62; low certainty of evidence). Among secondary outcomes, higher PEEP was associated with better oxygenation, higher respiratory system compliance, and lower risk of hypoxemia and ARDS occurrence. Furthermore, barotrauma, hypotension, duration of ventilation, lengths of stay, and ICU mortality were similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

In our meta-analysis of RCTs, higher PEEP, compared with lower PEEP, was not associated with mortality in patients without ARDS receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Further large high-quality RCTs are required to confirm these findings.

SUBMITTER: Pettenuzzo T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8280384 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe hypothesized that as CARDS may present different pathophysiological features than classic ARDS, the application of high levels of end-expiratory pressure is questionable. Our first aim was to investigate the effects of 5-15 cmH2O of PEEP on partitioned respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and dead space; secondly, we investigated whether respiratory system compliance and severity of hypoxemia could affect the response to PEEP on partitioned respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and dead space, dividing the population according to the median value of respiratory system compliance and oxygenation. Thirdly, we explored the effects of an additional PEEP selected according to the Empirical PEEP-FiO2 table of the EPVent-2 study on partitioned respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in a subgroup of patients.MethodsSixty-one paralyzed mechanically ventilated patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled (age 60 [54-67] years, PaO2/FiO2 113 [79-158] mmHg and PEEP 10 [10-10] cmH2O). Keeping constant tidal volume, respiratory rate and oxygen fraction, two PEEP levels (5 and 15 cmH2O) were selected. In a subgroup of patients an additional PEEP level was applied according to an Empirical PEEP-FiO2 table (empirical PEEP). At each PEEP level gas exchange, partitioned lung mechanics and hemodynamic were collected.ResultsAt 15 cmH2O of PEEP the lung elastance, lung stress and mechanical power were higher compared to 5 cmH2O. The PaO2/FiO2, arterial carbon dioxide and ventilatory ratio increased at 15 cmH2O of PEEP. The arterial-venous oxygen difference and central venous saturation were higher at 15 cmH2O of PEEP. Both the mechanics and gas exchange variables significantly increased although with high heterogeneity. By increasing the PEEP from 5 to 15 cmH2O, the changes in partitioned respiratory mechanics and mechanical power were not related to hypoxemia or respiratory compliance. The empirical PEEP was 18 ± 1 cmH2O. The empirical PEEP significantly increased the PaO2/FiO2 but also driving pressure, lung elastance, lung stress and mechanical power compared to 15 cmH2O of PEEP.ConclusionsIn COVID-19 ARDS during the early phase the effects of raising PEEP are highly variable and cannot easily be predicted by respiratory system characteristics, because of the heterogeneity of the disease.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The study objective was to compare titration of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and with ventilator-embedded pressure-volume loop in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS:We have designed a prospective study with historical control group. Twenty-four severe ARDS patients (arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ratio, PaO2/FiO2?<?100 mmHg) were included in the EIT group and examined prospectively. Data from another 31 severe ARDS patients were evaluated retrospectively (control group). All patients were receiving medical care under identical general support guidelines and protective mechanical ventilation. The PEEP level selected in the EIT group was the intercept point of cumulated collapse and overdistension percentages curves. In the control group, optimal PEEP was selected 2 cmH2O above the lower inflection point on the static pressure-volume curve. RESULTS:Patients in the EIT group were younger (P?<?0.05), and their mean plateau pressure was 1.5 cmH2O higher (P?<?0.01). No differences in other baseline parameters such as APACHE II score, PaO2/FiO2, initial PEEP, driving pressure, tidal volume, and respiratory system compliance were found. Two hours after the first PEEP titration, significantly higher PEEP, compliance, and lower driving pressure were found in the EIT group (P?<?0.01). Hospital survival rates were 66.7% (16 of 24 patients) in the EIT group and 48.4% (15 of 31) in the control group. Identical rates were found regarding the weaning success rate: 66.7% in the EIT group and 48.4% in the control group. CONCLUSION:In severe ARDS patients, it was feasible and safe to guide PEEP titration with EIT at the bedside. As compared with pressure-volume curve, the EIT-guided PEEP titration may be associated with improved oxygenation, compliance, driving pressure, and weaning success rate. The findings encourage further randomized control study with a larger sample size and potentially less bias in the baseline data. Trial Registration NCT03112512.

Project description:BackgroundIn acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is variable according to different degrees of lung recruitability. The search for a tool to individualize PEEP based on patients' individual response is warranted. End-expiratory lung volume (EELV) assessment by nitrogen washing-washout aids bedside estimation of PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment and may therefore help titrate PEEP on patient's individual recruitability. We designed a randomized trial to test whether an individualized PEEP setting protocol driven by EELV measurement may improve a composite clinical outcome in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS (IPERPEEP trial).MethodsIPERPEEP is an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial that will be conducted in 10 intensive care units in Italy and will enroll 132 ARDS patients showing PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 150 mmHg within 24 h from endotracheal intubation while on mechanical ventilation with PEEP 5 cmH2O. To standardize lung volumes at study initiation, all patients will undergo mechanical ventilation with tidal volume of 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight and PEEP set to obtain a plateau pressure within 28 and 30 cmH2O for 30 min (EXPRESS PEEP). Afterwards, a 5-step decremental PEEP trial will be conducted (EXPRESS PEEP to PEEP 5 cmH2O), and EELV will be measured at each step. Recruitment-to-inflation ratio will be calculated for each PEEP range from EELV difference. Patients will be then randomized to receive mechanical ventilation with PEEP set according to the optimal recruitment observed in the PEEP trial (IPERPEEP arm) trial or to achieve a plateau pressure of 28-30 cmH2O (control arm, EXPRESS strategy). In both groups, tidal volume size, use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents, and weaning from PEEP and from mechanical ventilation will be standardized. The primary endpoint of the study is a composite clinical outcome incorporating in-ICU mortality, 60-day ventilator-free days, and serum interleukin-6 concentration over the course of the initial 72 h of treatment.DiscussionThe IPERPEEP study is a randomized trial powered to elucidate whether an individualized PEEP setting protocol based on bedside assessment of lung recruitability can improve a composite clinical outcome during moderate-to-severe ARDS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04012073 . Registered 9 July 2019.

Project description:ImportanceIt is uncertain whether invasive ventilation can use lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).ObjectiveTo determine whether a lower PEEP strategy is noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy regarding duration of mechanical ventilation at 28 days.Design, setting, and participantsNoninferiority 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.InterventionsParticipants 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceAmong 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167580.