Dataset Information

Positive End-Expiratory Pressure and Respiratory Rate Modify the Association of Mechanical Power and Driving Pressure With Mortality Among Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Mechanical power and driving pressure have known associations with survival for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Objectives

To further understand the relative importance of mechanical power and driving pressure as clinical targets for ventilator management.

Design

Secondary observational analysis of randomized clinical trial data.

Setting and participants

Patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome from three Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network trials.

Main outcomes and measures

After adjusting for patient severity in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, we examined the relative association of driving pressure and mechanical power with hospital mortality. Among 2,410 patients, the relationship between driving pressure and mechanical power with mortality was modified by respiratory rate, positive end-expiratory pressure, and flow.

Results

Among patients with low respiratory rate (< 26), only power was significantly associated with mortality (power [hazard ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.35; p < 0.001] vs driving pressure [hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.21; p = 0.95]), while among patients with high respiratory rate, neither was associated with mortality. Both power and driving pressure were associated with mortality at high airway flow (power [hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.15-1.43; p < 0.001] vs driving pressure [hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30; p = 0.041]) and neither at low flow. At low positive end-expiratory pressure, neither was associated with mortality, whereas at high positive end-expiratory pressure (≥ 10 cm H₂O), only power was significantly associated with mortality (power [hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.37; p < 0.001] vs driving pressure [hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.99-1.35; p = 0.059]).

Conclusions and relevance

The relationship between mechanical power and driving pressure with mortality differed within severity subgroups defined by positive end-expiratory pressure, respiratory rate, and airway flow.

SUBMITTER: Tonna JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8663805 | 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:BackgroundThe 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsPatients 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.ConclusionIn 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:Background: Different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies are available for subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to evaluate three conventional PEEP strategies on their effects on respiratory mechanics, gas exchanges, and hemodynamics. Methods: This is a prospective, physiologic, multicenter study conducted in China. We recruited 20 intubated subjects with ARDS and confirmed COVID-19. We first set PEEP by the ARDSnet low PEEP-fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) table. After a recruitment maneuver, PEEP was set at 15, 10, and 5 cm H2O for 10 min, respectively. Among these three PEEP levels, best-compliance PEEP was the one providing the highest respiratory system compliance; best-oxygenation PEEP was the one providing the highest PaO2 (partial pressure of arterial oxygen)/FIO2. Results: At each PEEP level, we assessed respiratory mechanics, arterial blood gas, and hemodynamics. Among three PEEP levels, plateau pressure, driving pressure, mechanical power, and blood pressure improved with lower PEEP. The ARDSnet low PEEP-FIO2 table and the best-oxygenation strategies provided higher PEEP than the best-compliance strategy (11 ± 6 cm H2O vs. 11 ± 3 cm H2O vs. 6 ± 2 cm H2O, p = 0.001), leading to higher plateau pressure, driving pressure, and mechanical power. The three PEEP strategies were not significantly different in gas exchange. The subgroup analysis showed that three PEEP strategies generated different effects in subjects with moderate or severe ARDS (n = 12) but not in subjects with mild ARDS (n = 8). Conclusions: In our cohort with COVID-19-induced ARDS, the ARDSnet low PEEP/FIO2 table and the best-oxygenation strategies led to higher PEEP and potentially higher risk of ventilator-induced lung injury than the best-compliance strategy. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04359251.