Skip Navigation LinksHome > February 2014 - Volume 42 - Issue 2 > Bedside Selection of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Mil...
Critical Care Medicine:
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a6384f
Feature Articles

Bedside Selection of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Mild, Moderate, and Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome*

Chiumello, Davide MD1,2; Cressoni, Massimo MD2; Carlesso, Eleonora MSc2; Caspani, Maria L. MD1; Marino, Antonella MD2; Gallazzi, Elisabetta MD2; Caironi, Pietro MD1,2; Lazzerini, Marco MD3; Moerer, Onnen MD4; Quintel, Michael MD4; Gattinoni, Luciano MD, FRCP1,2

Supplemental Author Material
Collapse Box

Abstract

Objective:

Positive end-expiratory pressure exerts its effects keeping open at end-expiration previously collapsed areas of the lung; consequently, higher positive end-expiratory pressure should be limited to patients with high recruitability. We aimed to determine which bedside method would provide positive end-expiratory pressure better related to lung recruitability.

Design:

Prospective study performed between 2008 and 2011.

Setting:

Two university hospitals (Italy and Germany).

Patients:

Fifty-one patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Interventions:

Whole lung CT scans were taken in static conditions at 5 and 45 cm H2O during an end-expiratory/end-inspiratory pause to measure lung recruitability. To select individual positive end-expiratory pressure, we applied bedside methods based on lung mechanics (ExPress, stress index), esophageal pressure, and oxygenation (higher positive end-expiratory pressure table of lung open ventilation study).

Measurements and Main Results:

Patients were classified in mild, moderate and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Positive end-expiratory pressure levels selected by the ExPress, stress index, and absolute esophageal pressures methods were unrelated with lung recruitability, whereas positive end-expiratory pressure levels selected by the lung open ventilation method showed a weak relationship with lung recruitability (r2 = 0.29; p < 0.0001). When patients were classified according to the acute respiratory distress syndrome Berlin definition, the lung open ventilation method was the only one which gave lower positive end-expiratory pressure levels in mild and moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome compared with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (8 ± 2 and 11 ± 3 cm H2O vs 15 ± 3 cm H2O; p < 0.05), whereas ExPress, stress index, and esophageal pressure methods gave similar positive end-expiratory pressure values in mild, moderate, and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. The positive end-expiratory pressure selected by the different methods were unrelated to each other with the exception of the two methods based on lung mechanics (ExPress and stress index).

Conclusions:

Bedside positive end-expiratory pressure selection methods based on lung mechanics or absolute esophageal pressures provide positive end-expiratory pressure levels unrelated to lung recruitability and similar in mild, moderate, and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, whereas the oxygenation-based method provided positive end-expiratory pressure levels related with lung recruitability progressively increasing from mild to moderate and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Copyright © 2014 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Article Tools

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.