What Tidal Volumes Should Be Used in Patients without Acute Lung Injury?
Schultz, Marcus J. M.D., Ph.D.*; Haitsma, Jack J. M.D., Ph.D.†; Slutsky, Arthur S. M.D.‡; Gajic, Ognjen M.D.§
Section Editor(s): Warltier, David C. M.D., Ph.D., Editor
Mechanical ventilation practice has changed over the past few decades, with tidal volumes (VT) decreasing significantly, especially in patients with acute lung injury (ALI). Patients without acute lung injury are still ventilated with large—and perhaps too large—VT. Studies of ventilator-associated lung injury in subjects without ALI demonstrate inconsistent results. Retrospective clinical studies, however, suggest that the use of large VT favors the development of lung injury in these patients. Side effects associated with the use of lower VT in patients with ALI seem to be minimal. Assuming that this will be the case in patients without ALI/acute respiratory distress syndrome too, the authors suggest that the use of lower VT should be considered in all mechanically ventilated patients whether they have ALI or not. Prospective studies should be performed to evaluate optimal ventilator management strategies for patients without ALI.
OVER the past decades, tidal volumes (VT
) used by clinicians have progressively decreased from greater than 12–15 ml/kg to less than 9 ml/kg actual body weight.1–6
Currently, there are guidelines that strongly support the use of lower VT
, 6 ml/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS).7
Widely-agreed-upon guidelines for setting VT
in patients who do not meet the ALI/ARDS consensus criteria are lacking, partly because there is a paucity of randomized controlled trial evidence on the best way to ventilate these patients.
We searched the literature for data addressing the size of VT in patients without ALI/ARDS, including articles on clinical mechanical ventilation practice and preclinical animal experiments. Based on this review, we propose a ventilator strategy for patients without ALI/ARDS.
Ventilator-associated Lung Injury in Patients with ALI/ARDS
Insights into the pathophysiology of ventilation-induced lung injury came from animal studies that showed that mechanical ventilation with larger VT
rapidly results in pulmonary changes that mimic ARDS8,9
: Injurious ventilatory settings result in development of diffuse alveolar damage with pulmonary edema,10,11
recruitment and activation of inflammatory cells,12,13
local production of inflammatory mediators (e.g.
and leakage of such mediators into the systemic circulation.16,17
Ranieri et al.18,19
confirmed a reduction in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and systemic concentrations of inflammatory mediators with lung-protective mechanical ventilation as compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in a clinical trial.
The randomized trial of Amato et al.20
found reduced 28-day mortality and faster liberation from mechanical ventilation with a lung-protective strategy, in part aiming at lower VT
, compared with conventional mechanical ventilation. The large, multicenter, prospective ARDS Network trial unambiguously confirmed that mechanical ventilation with lower VT
(6 ml/kg PBW) rather than traditional VT
(12 ml/kg PBW) resulted in a significant increase in the number of ventilator-free days and a reduction of in-hospital mortality.21
Although initially concerns over increased sedation requirements hampered implementation of the so-called lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategy, two secondary analyses of the ARDS Network trial showed this to be not true.22,23
In addition, the commonly held view that plateau pressures of 30–35 cm H2
O are safe was recently challenged.24
Results from a secondary analysis of the prospective ARDS Network trial suggest that there is a beneficial effect of VT
reduction from 12 ml/kg to 6 ml/kg PBW, regardless of the plateau pressure, and lower VT
are also suggested for patients with plateau pressures less than 30 cm H2
O. Lower VT
are now strongly recommended in patients with ALI/ARDS.7
Ventilator-associated Lung Injury in Patients without ALI/ARDS
There are several reasons for not separating patients with ALI from those without ALI. First, diagnosing ALI/ARDS is at times challenging.25
Although the ALI/ARDS consensus criteria seem relatively simple to apply, use of higher levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can improve both the oxygenation ratio and abnormalities on chest radiographs to the extent that the patients no longer have ALI (by definition).8,26
Second, patients may not yet fulfill ALI/ARDS criteria at the initiation of mechanical ventilation but may develop lung injury in their disease course. Third, critically ill patients are at a constant threat of other causes of lung injury (e.g.
, ventilator-associated pneumonia, transfusion-related lung injury). A multiple hit theory can be suggested in which repeated challenges lead to the clinical picture of ALI/ARDS.
Although average VT
in nonselected mechanically ventilated patients have declined to approximately 10 ml/kg PBW,3,4,27
many patients are still exposed to relatively large VT
In addition to the theoretical arguments advanced above, there are clinical data suggesting that patients without a diagnosis of ALI/ARDS may benefit from lower VT
. In a large international prospective observational study, Esteban et al.4
determined the survival of patients receiving mechanical ventilation and the relative importance of factors influencing survival. Among the conditions independently associated with increased mortality were characteristics present at the start of mechanical ventilation and occurring over the course of mechanical ventilation, but also factors related to patient management. Plateau pressures greater than 35 cm H2
O were associated with an increased risk for death. Although not definitive (the higher plateau pressures may simply have been an indication that the patients were sicker), this study suggested that VT
were too large (per lung size) in these patients, thereby causing an exaggeration of lung injury and eventually death.
In a single-center observational cohort study, Gajic et al.29
reported a significant variability in the initial VT
settings in mechanically ventilated patients without ALI/ARDS. Of patients ventilated for 2 days or longer who did not have ALI/ARDS at the onset of mechanical ventilation, 25% developed ALI/ARDS within 5 days of mechanical ventilation. In a multivariate analysis, the main risk factors associated with the development of lung injury were the use of large VT
, transfusion of blood products, acidemia, and a history of restrictive lung disease. The odds ratio of developing ALI was 1.3 for each milliliter above 6 ml/kg PBW. Interestingly, female patients were ventilated with larger VT
(per predicted body weight) and tended to develop lung injury more often. The investigators explored this association in a large sample of patients prospectively enrolled in the aforementioned multicenter international study on mechanical ventilation4
and found development of ARDS to be associated with the initial ventilator settings.30
(odds ratio 2.6 for VT
> 700 ml) and high peak airway pressure (odds ratio 1.6 for peak airway pressure > 30 cm H2
O) were independently associated with development of ARDS in patients who did not have ARDS at the onset of mechanical ventilation (“late ARDS”).
Deleterious effects of large VT
have also been suggested in patients who were ventilated for only several hours (summarized in table 1
). Fernandez et al.31
collected intraoperative VT
of pneumonectomy patients. Of these patients, 18% developed postoperative respiratory failure; in half of the cases, these patients developed ALI/ARDS consensus criteria. Patients who developed respiratory failure had been ventilated with larger intraoperative VT
than those who did not (median, 8.3 vs.
6.7 ml/kg predicted body weight; P
< 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, larger intraoperative VT
, in addition to larger volumes of intraoperative fluid, was identified as a risk factor of postoperative respiratory failure.
Similar findings were found in a recent study by Michelet et al.32
In this study, 52 patients undergoing planned esophagectomy for cancer were randomly assigned to a conventional ventilation strategy (VT
of 9 ml/kg during two-lung and one-lung ventilation; no PEEP) or a protective ventilation strategy (VT
of 9 ml/kg during two-lung ventilation, reduced to 5 ml/kg during one-lung ventilation; PEEP of 5 cm H2
O throughout the operative time). Patients who received protective strategy had lower blood levels of interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, and IL-8 at the end of one-lung ventilation and 18 h after surgery. Protective strategy also resulted in higher arterial oxygen tension/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio during one-lung ventilation and 1 h after surgery and in a reduction of postoperative mechanical ventilation duration.
Several other investigators have prospectively tested the hypothesis that mechanical ventilation settings could be deleterious and induce or alter pulmonary inflammation in patients without lung injury at the onset of mechanical ventilation. The strongest evidence for benefit of protective lung ventilation in patients without ALI/ARDS comes from a randomized clinical trial in postoperative patients.33
Intubated mechanically ventilated patients in the surgical intensive care unit were randomly assigned to mechanical ventilation with VT
of 12 ml/kg actual body weight or lower VT
of 6 ml/kg. The incidence of pulmonary infection tended to be lower, and duration of intubation and duration of stay tended to be shorter for nonneurosurgical and noncardiac surgical patients randomly assigned to the lower VT
strategy, suggesting that morbidity may be decreased. Importantly, use of lower VT
seemed to be safe. Indeed, although use of lower VT
was associated with a statistically significant decrease in oxygenation, this was clinically irrelevant.
Wrigge et al.34
randomly assigned patients without previous lung injury scheduled for elective surgery with general anesthesia to receive mechanical ventilation with either large VT
(15 ml/kg) or lower VT
(6 ml/kg) without the use of PEEP, or lower VT
with PEEP of 10 cm H2
O. Initiation of mechanical ventilation for 1 h caused no consistent changes in plasma levels of various mediators, and no differences were found among the three study groups. Similar results came form a study by Koner et al.35
Wrigge et al.36
also studied the effects of mechanical ventilation on inflammatory responses during major thoracic or abdominal surgery. Patients undergoing elective thoracotomy or laparotomy were randomly assigned to receive either mechanical ventilation with VT
of 12 or 15 ml/kg, respectively, and no PEEP, or VT
of 6 ml/kg with PEEP of 10 cm H2
O. In this study, neither time course nor concentrations of pulmonary or systemic mediators differed between the two ventilatory settings within 3 h.
In contrast to the reports that did not show any deleterious effects of larger VT
in patients with noninjured lungs, other articles have demonstrated the injurious effects of large VT
Wrigge et al.37
reported on the effect of postoperative mechanical ventilation with lower VT
on inflammatory responses induced by cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. In this study, immediately after surgery, mechanical ventilation was applied for 6 h with either VT
of 6 or 12 ml/kg PBW. The time course of inflammatory mediators did not differ significantly between the ventilatory strategies, although in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid sampled after 6 h of initiation of mechanical ventilation, tumor necrosis factor α levels were significantly higher in patients ventilated with large VT
. Similar results were found by Zupancich et al.
, who randomly assigned elective coronary artery bypass patients to ventilation after surgery with large VT
/low PEEP (10–12 ml/kg and 2–3 cm H2
O) or low VT
/high PEEP (8 ml/kg and 10 cm H2
Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and plasma was obtained before sternotomy, immediately after cardiopulmonary bypass separation, and after 6 h of mechanical ventilation. IL-6 and IL-8 levels in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and plasma significantly increased before sternotomy in both groups but further increased only in patients ventilated with large VT
and low PEEP. Reis Miranda et al.39
randomly assigned patients undergoing elective cardiopulmonary bypass to conventional ventilation with VT
of 6–8 ml/kg PBW and PEEP of 5 cm H2
O, or lung-protective ventilation with VT
of 4–6 ml/kg PBW and PEEP of 10 cm H2
O. IL-8 levels decreased more rapidly in the lung-protective group in the 3 days after the operation.
Choi et al.40
randomly assigned patients scheduled for an elective surgical procedure (lasting ≥ 5 h) to mechanical ventilation with either large VT
(12 ml/kg) and no PEEP, or lower VT
and PEEP of 10 cm H2
O. In contrast to lung-protective mechanical ventilation, the use of larger VT
promoted procoagulant changes, potentially leading to fibrin depositions within the airways. With the use of lower VT
, these procoagulant changes were largely prevented.
Many mechanically ventilated critically ill patients are at risk of developing ALI/ARDS. Such patients may have lung injury but do not yet fulfill the ALI/ARDS consensus criteria at the start of mechanical ventilation. Patients with pneumonia or restrictive lung disease and those undergoing lung resection are among those at particular risk of ALI and ventilator-induced lung injury. Furthermore, in subjects without ALI but who have a predisposing condition, one or more “subsequent hits” can result in full-blown lung injury. Because nonprotective forms of mechanical ventilation may initiate or exacerbate pulmonary inflammation, use of large VT
may induce the “primary hit” or form a “second or third hit.” Consequently, differences in results from the several pathophysiologic studies on ventilator-associated lung injury in healthy lungs may be explained. Longer periods of mechanical ventilation,38,40
with or without extrapulmonary “hits,”37,38
may cause more injury than shorter periods of mechanical ventilation with no extrapulmonary challenges.34,36
It is important to emphasize that “lower VT
” in fact are “normal VT
.” Mammals have a normal VT
of 6.3 ml/kg.41
Normal lung volumes can be predicted on the basis of sex and height.42,43
In the ARDS Network trial, the predicted body weight of male patients was calculated as 50 + 0.91 (centimeters of height − 152.4); that of female patients was calculated as 45.5 + 0.91 (centimeters of height − 152.4).21
Unfortunately, many textbooks of medicine state 10 ml/kg actual body weight as initial ventilator settings, exposing women and shorter patients to higher and potentially injurious VT
Clinical Recommendations and Future Considerations
The inconsistent results of the aforementioned randomized studies do not definitively support the use of lower VT. Most of the studies favoring a protective ventilation regimen in non-ALI patients measured surrogate markers such as inflammatory mediators instead of clinical outcome measures. Only three retrospective studies identified large VT as a risk factor of respiratory failure. Therefore, although likely, clinical relevance of these results is not proven, and prospective studies ought to be performed.
It may be important to distinguish between mechanical ventilation in the operating room and the intensive care unit. Patients in the operating room are mechanically ventilated for a much shorter time than those in the intensive care unit. Furthermore, as stated above, a multiple hit theory can be suggested in which repeated challenges (including mechanical ventilation) lead to the clinical picture of ALI/ARDS. Both surgical patients and critically ill patients are at risk for several causes of lung injury. However, these may not be the same for both patient groups, and each challenge may have different effects in both groups. Finally, much of our knowledge on the importance of using lower VT falls back on research in the field of ALI/ARDS; the cellular response to injury, however, is different depending on the priming of pulmonary cells by ischemia or inflammation. Both processes can occur in the perioperative period. Therefore, it remains to be determined whether we need to ventilate patients in the operating room and in the intensive care unit equally (i.e., with lower VT).
Nevertheless, while awaiting the results of further prospective studies, we recommend avoidance of high plateau pressures and high VT
in patients who do not have ALI/ARDS at the onset of mechanical ventilation (fig. 1
). These recommendations are based on expert opinion, as well as currently available evidence cited in this review.24,29–32
Future studies are mandatory to confirm our recommendations. These recommendations do not take into account specific ventilator management of patients with obstructive lung diseases; problems encountered in these patients (dynamic hyperinflation) are not discussed in this review.
The main objective of lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategies is to minimize regional end-inspiratory stretch, thereby decreasing alveolar damage as well as alveolar inflammation/decompartmentalization.18,19
In many patients with normal lungs (e.g.
, patients undergoing short-term ventilation during low-risk surgical procedures, those with muscle weakness) the end-inspiratory stretch may be relatively low even with a VT
of 10 ml/kg PBW. In these patients, if the plateau pressure is low (e.g.
, < 15 cm H2
O) and they are not breathing spontaneously, lower VT
are probably not indicated—in fact, it may lead to atelectasis, especially if PEEP is low or not used at all. If plateau pressures increase (e.g.
, > 15–20 cm H2
should be decreased to approximately 6 ml/kg PBW (fig. 1
). Sufficient PEEP must be used to minimize atelectasis and maintain oxygenation. It is important to realize that plateau pressures may be misleading in some occasions: In patients with significant spontaneous breathing efforts, plateau pressures may be low, but the transalveolar pressures and lung overdistension may still be high because of large negative pleural pressures. Conversely, in patients who have decreased chest wall compliance (increased intraabdominal pressure, obesity), plateau pressures may be high without there being pulmonary overdistension.
Finally, the use of lower VT could improve the hemodynamic tolerance of mechanical ventilation and in this way may improve outcome. Moreover, by decreasing the need for fluids, this beneficial hemodynamic effect could contribute to the decreased incidence of secondary ALI/ARDS. So far, no studies have been performed addressing this issue.
In conclusion, patients without ALI/ARDS may also be at risk for ventilator-associated lung injury. The association with the potentially injurious initial ventilator settings, in particular large VT, suggests that ARDS in mechanically ventilated patients is in part a preventable complication. Prospective studies are required to further evaluate optimal ventilator management strategies for patients without ALI/ARDS at the onset of mechanical ventilation.
1. Suter PM, Fairley B, Isenberg MD: Optimum end-expiratory airway pressure in patients with acute pulmonary failure. N Engl J Med 1975; 292:284–9
2. Jardin F, Farcot JC, Boisante L, Curien N, Margairaz A, Bourdarias JP: Influence of positive end-expiratory pressure on left ventricular performance. N Engl J Med 1981; 304:387–92
3. Esteban A, Anzueto A, Alia I, Gordo F, Apezteguia C, Palizas F, Cide D, Goldwaser R, Soto L, Bugedo G, Rodrigo C, Pimentel J, Raimondi G, Tobin MJ: How is mechanical ventilation employed in the intensive care unit? An international utilization review. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161:1450–8
4. Esteban A, Anzueto A, Frutos F, Alia I, Brochard L, Stewart TE, Benito S, Epstein SK, Apezteguia C, Nightingale P, Arroliga AC, Tobin MJ: Characteristics and outcomes in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation: A 28-day international study. JAMA 2002; 287:345–55
5. Brun-Buisson C, Minelli C, Bertolini G, Brazzi L, Pimentel J, Lewandowski K, Bion J, Romand JA, Villar J, Thorsteinsson A, Damas P, Armaganidis A, Lemaire F: Epidemiology and outcome of acute lung injury in European intensive care units: Results from the ALIVE study. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:51–61
6. Sakr Y, Vincent JL, Reinhart K, Groeneveld J, Michalopoulos A, Sprung CL, Artigas A, Ranieri VM: High tidal volume and positive fluid balance are associated with worse outcome in acute lung injury. Chest 2005; 128:3098–108
7. Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, Gerlach H, Calandra T, Cohen J, Gea-Banacloche J, Keh D, Marshall JC, Parker MM, Ramsay G, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL, Levy MM: Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:858–73
8. Villar J: Ventilator or physician-induced lung injury? Minerva Anestesiol 2005; 71:255–8
9. Dreyfuss D, Saumon G: Ventilator-induced lung injury: Lessons from experimental studies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998; 157:294–323
10. Webb HH, Tierney DF: Experimental pulmonary edema due to intermittent positive pressure ventilation with high inflation pressures: Protection by positive end-expiratory pressure. Am Rev Respir Dis 1974; 110:556–65
11. Dreyfuss D, Soler P, Basset G, Saumon G: High inflation pressure pulmonary edema: Respective effects of high airway pressure, high tidal volume, and positive end-expiratory pressure. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988; 137:1159–64
12. Kawano T, Mori S, Cybulsky M, Burger R, Ballin A, Cutz E, Bryan AC: Effect of granulocyte depletion in a ventilated surfactant-depleted lung. J Appl Physiol 1987; 62:27–33
13. Sugiura M, McCulloch PR, Wren S, Dawson RH, Froese AB: Ventilator pattern influences neutrophil influx and activation in atelectasis-prone rabbit lung. J Appl Physiol 1994; 77:1355–65
14. Ricard JD, Dreyfuss D, Saumon G: Production of inflammatory cytokines in ventilator-induced lung injury: A reappraisal. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163:1176–80
15. Tremblay L, Valenza F, Ribeiro SP, Li J, Slutsky AS: Injurious ventilatory strategies increase cytokines and c-fos m-RNA expression in an isolated rat lung model. J Clin Invest 1997; 99:944–52
16. Haitsma JJ, Uhlig S, Goggel R, Verbrugge SJ, Lachmann U, Lachmann B: Ventilator-induced lung injury leads to loss of alveolar and systemic compartmentalization of tumor necrosis factor-alpha. Intensive Care Med 2000; 26:1515–22
17. Haitsma JJ, Uhlig S, Lachmann U, Verbrugge SJ, Poelma DL, Lachmann B: Exogenous surfactant reduces ventilator-induced decompartmentalization of tumor necrosis factor alpha in absence of positive end-expiratory pressure. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28:1131–7
18. Ranieri VM, Suter PM, Tortorella C, De Tullio R, Dayer JM, Brienza A, Bruno F, Slutsky AS: Effect of mechanical ventilation on inflammatory mediators in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1999; 282:54–61
19. Ranieri VM, Giunta F, Suter PM, Slutsky AS: Mechanical ventilation as a mediator of multisystem organ failure in acute respiratory distress syndrome. JAMA 2000; 284:43–4
20. Amato MB, Barbas CS, Medeiros DM, Magaldi RB, Schettino GP, Lorenzi-Filho G, Kairalla RA, Deheinzelin D, Munoz C, Oliveira R, Takagaki TY, Carvalho CR: Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:347–54
21. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network: Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1301–8
22. Cheng IW, Eisner MD, Thompson BT, Ware LB, Matthay MA: Acute effects of tidal volume strategy on hemodynamics, fluid balance, and sedation in acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 2005; 33:3–70
23. Kahn JM, Andersson L, Karir V, Polissar NL, Neff MJ, Rubenfeld GD: Low tidal volume ventilation does not increase sedation use in patients with acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 2005; 33:766–71
24. Hager DN, Krishnan JA, Hayden DL, Brower RG: Tidal volume reduction in patients with acute lung injury when plateau pressures are not high. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 172:1241–5
25. Rubenfeld GD, Cooper C, Carter G, Thompson BT, Hudson LD: Barriers to providing lung-protective ventilation to patients with acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:1289–93
26. Villar J, Perez-Mendez L, Kacmarek RM: Current definitions of acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome do not reflect their true severity and outcome. Intensive Care Med 1999; 25:930–5
27. Wongsurakiat P, Pierson DJ, Rubenfeld GD: Changing pattern of ventilator settings in patients without acute lung injury: Changes over 11 years in a single institution. Chest 2004; 126:1281–91
28. Wolthuis EK, Korevaar JC, Spronk P, Kuiper MA, Dzoljic M, Vroom MB, Schultz MJ: Feedback and education improve physician compliance in use of lung-protective mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2005; 31:540–6
29. Gajic O, Dara SI, Mendez JL, Adesanya AO, Festic E, Caples SM, Rana R, St Sauver JL, Lymp JF, Afessa B, Hubmayr RD: Ventilator-associated lung injury in patients without acute lung injury at the onset of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:1817–24
30. Gajic O, Frutos-Vivar F, Esteban A, Hubmayr RD, Anzueto A: Ventilator settings as a risk factor for acute respiratory distress syndrome in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med 2005; 31:922–6
31. Fernandez-Perez ER, Keegan MT, Brown DR, Hubmayr RD, Gajic O: Intraoperative tidal volume as a risk factor for respiratory failure after pneumonectomy. Anesthesiology 2006; 105:14–8
32. Michelet P, D’Journo XB, Roch A, Doddoli C, Marin V, Papazian L, Decamps I, Bregeon F, Thomas P, Auffray JP: Protective ventilation influences systemic inflammation after esophagectomy: A randomized controlled study. Anesthesiology 2006; 105:911–9
33. Lee PC, Helsmoortel CM, Cohn SM, Fink MP: Are low tidal volumes safe? Chest 1990; 97:430–4
34. Wrigge H, Zinserling J, Stuber F, von Spiegel T, Hering R, Wetegrove S, Hoeft A, Putensen C: Effects of mechanical ventilation on release of cytokines into systemic circulation in patients with normal pulmonary function. Anesthesiology 2000; 93:1413–7
35. Koner O, Celebi S, Balci H, Cetin G, Karaoglu K, Cakar N: Effects of protective and conventional mechanical ventilation on pulmonary function and systemic cytokine release after cardiopulmonary bypass. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:620–6
36. Wrigge H, Uhlig U, Zinserling J, Behrends-Callsen E, Ottersbach G, Fischer M, Uhlig S, Putensen C: The effects of different ventilatory settings on pulmonary and systemic inflammatory responses during major surgery. Anesth Analg 2004; 98:775–81
37. Wrigge H, Uhlig U, Baumgarten G, Menzenbach J, Zinserling J, Ernst M, Dromann D, Welz A, Uhlig S, Putensen C: Mechanical ventilation strategies and inflammatory responses to cardiac surgery: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med 2005; 31:1379–87
38. Zupancich E, Paparella D, Turani F, Munch C, Rossi A, Massaccesi S, Ranieri VM: Mechanical ventilation affects inflammatory mediators in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass for cardiac surgery: A randomized clinical trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005; 130:378–83
39. Reis Miranda D, Gommers D, Struijs A, Dekker R, Mekel J, Feelders R, Lachmann B, Bogers AJ: Ventilation according to the open lung concept attenuates pulmonary inflammatory response in cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005; 28:889–95
40. Choi G, Wolthuis EK, Bresser P, Levi M, van der Poll T, Dzoljic M, Vroom B Schultz MJ: Mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure prevents alveolar coagulation in patients without lung injury. Anesthesiology 2006; 105:689–95
41. Tenney SM, Remmers JE: Comparative quantitative morphology of the mammalian lung: Diffusing area. Nature 1963; 197:54–6
42. Crapo RO, Morris AH, Gardner RM: Reference spirometric values using techniques and equipment that meet ATS recommendations. Am Rev Respir Dis 1981; 123:659–64
43. Crapo RO, Morris AH, Clayton PD, Nixon CR: Lung volumes in healthy nonsmoking adults. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir 1982; 18:419–25
This article has been cited 57 time(s).
New England Journal of MedicineA Trial of Intraoperative Low-Tidal-Volume Ventilation in Abdominal SurgeryNew England Journal of Medicine
Intensive Care MedicineThe FINNALI study on acute respiratory failure: not the final cutIntensive Care Medicine
Critical CareVentilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with conventional tidal volumes for patients without acute lung injury: a preventive randomized controlled trialCritical Care
Anesthesia and AnalgesiaLow Tidal Volume and High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Mechanical Ventilation Results in Increased Inflammation and Ventilator-Associated Lung Injury in Normal LungsAnesthesia and Analgesia
Anesthesia and AnalgesiaWeaning Automation with Adaptive Support Ventilation: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Cardiothoracic Surgery PatientsAnesthesia and Analgesia
Intensive Care MedicineAn intervention to decrease complications related to endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit: a prospective, multiple-center studyIntensive Care Medicine
Anesthesia and AnalgesiaVentilating Smoothly: Physiology Guides You Best!Anesthesia and Analgesia
Respiratory ResearchAcute lung inflammation and ventilator-induced lung injury caused by ATP via the P2Y receptors: an experimental studyRespiratory Research
AnaesthesistMechanical ventilation of morbidly obese patients in anaesthesia and intensive careAnaesthesist
Acta Anaesthesiologica ScandinavicaAutomated pre-ejection period variation predicts fluid responsiveness in low tidal volume ventilated pigsActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Mid-Frequency Ventilation: Unconventional Use of Conventional Mechanical Ventilation as a Lung-Protection Strategy
Respiratory Care, 53():
Experimental Lung ResearchAcute Respiratory Distress Induced By Repeated Saline Lavage Provides Stable Experimental Conditions for 24 Hours in PigsExperimental Lung Research
Pediatric AnesthesiaProtective ventilation to reduce inflammatory injury from one lung ventilation in a piglet modelPediatric Anesthesia
Journal of Critical CareRisk factors for the deterioration of oxygenation ratio in ventilated intensive care unit patients: A retrospective cohort studyJournal of Critical Care
Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association
Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Patients With 2009 Influenza A(H1N1)
Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 303():
Critical CareIs acute respiratory distress syndrome an iatrogenic disease?Critical Care
Clinics in Chest MedicineIs there a best way to set tidal volume for mechanical ventilatory support?Clinics in Chest Medicine
Neurocritical CareHow I Manage the Adult Potential Organ Donor: Donation After Neurological Death (Part 1)Neurocritical Care
Acta Anaesthesiologica ScandinavicaAutomated pre-ejection period variation indexed to tidal volume predicts fluid responsiveness after cardiac surgeryActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Anesthesia and AnalgesiaDeterminants of tidal volumes with adaptive support ventilation: A Multicenter observational studyAnesthesia and Analgesia
Anesthesia and AnalgesiaDo new anesthesia ventilators deliver small tidal volumes accurately during volume-controlled ventilation?Anesthesia and Analgesia
Acta Anaesthesiologica ScandinavicaShould dynamic parameters for prediction of fluid responsiveness be indexed to the tidal volume?Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Critical CareMechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes does not influence the prescription of opioids or sedativesCritical Care
Acta Clinica Belgica
Intra-abdominal pressure and respiratory function
Acta Clinica Belgica, 64(3):
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care
The performance of Drager Oxylog ventilators at simulated altitude
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 36(4):
Journal of Critical CareEffect of a clinical decision support system on adherence to a lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation strategyJournal of Critical Care
Postoperative pulmonary complications
Minerva Anestesiologica, 76(2):
American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular PhysiologyLung epithelial injury markers are not influenced by use of lower tidal volumes during elective surgery in patients without preexisting lung injuryAmerican Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology
A Case of Pneumomediastinum in a Patient With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome on Pressure Support Ventilation
Respiratory Care, 55(6):
Does Spontaneous Breathing Produce Harm in Patients With the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome?
Respiratory Care, 55(6):
Respiratory CareVentilator-Induced Lung Injury: Minimizing Its Impact in Patients With or at Risk for ARDSRespiratory Care
Intensive Care MedicineProphylactic protective ventilation: lower tidal volumes for all critically ill patients?Intensive Care Medicine
Brain-lung crosstalk in critical care: how protective mechanical ventilation can affect the brain homeostasis
Minerva Anestesiologica, 79(3):
OncologieSurgical support for gastric adenocarcinomaOncologie
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryA randomized comparison of different ventilator strategies during thoracotomy for pulmonary resectionJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Transplantation ReviewsIntraoperative protective ventilation strategies in lung transplantationTransplantation Reviews
British Journal of AnaesthesiaTechnology comparison studies require precise reference controls to be valid ReplyBritish Journal of Anaesthesia
British Journal of AnaesthesiaTidal volume measurement: OK for science, but too difficult for a workstation standard?British Journal of Anaesthesia
British Journal of AnaesthesiaDelivery of tidal volume from four anaesthesia ventilators during volume-controlled ventilation: a bench studyBritish Journal of Anaesthesia
Intensive Care MedicineEvaluation of fully automated ventilation: a randomized controlled study in post-cardiac surgery patientsIntensive Care Medicine
Journal of Critical CareA 5-year observational study of lung-protective ventilation in the operating room: A single-center experienceJournal of Critical Care
European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA)Ventilatory management during routine general anaesthesiaEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA)
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care SurgeryEn-Route Care in the Air: Snapshot of Mechanical Ventilation at 37,000 FeetJournal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
AnesthesiologyNoisy Mechanical Ventilation: Listen to the MelodyAnesthesiology
Critical Care MedicinePermissive hypercapnia and immunosuppression*Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care MedicineAcute lung injury after severe brain injury—A plea for hypothermia?Critical Care Medicine
Current Opinion in Critical CareExtracellular matrix and mechanical ventilation in healthy lungs: back to baro/volotrauma?Current Opinion in Critical Care
Current Opinion in Critical CareIntensive care management of acute liver failureCurrent Opinion in Critical Care
European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA)Optimal ventilator settings in acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndromeEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA)
© 2007 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.
Publication of an advertisement in Anesthesiology Online does not constitute endorsement by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc. or Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. of the product or service being advertised.