Introduction: To investigate the effects of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on respiratory function and hemodynamics in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with normal intra-abdominal pressure (IAP < 12 mmHg) and with intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH, defined as IAP ≥ 12 mmHg) during lung protective ventilation and a decremental PEEP, a prospective, observational clinical pilot study was performed. Methods: Twenty patients with ALI/ARDS with normal IAP or IAH treated in the surgical intensive care unit in a university hospital were studied. The mean IAP in patients with IAH and normal IAP was 16 ± 3 mmHg and 8 ± 3 mmHg, respectively (P < 0.001). At different PEEP levels (5, 10, 15, 20 cmH₂O) we measured respiratory mechanics, partitioned into its lung and chest wall components, alveolar recruitment, gas-exchange, hemodynamics, extravascular lung water index (EVLWI) and intrathoracic blood volume index (ITBVI). Results: We found that ALI/ARDS patients with IAH, as compared to those with normal IAP, were characterized by: a) no differences in gas-exchange, respiratory mechanics, partitioned into its lung and chest wall components, as well as hemodynamics and EVLWI/ITBVI; b) decreased elastance of the respiratory system and the lung, but no differences in alveolar recruitment and oxygenation or hemodynamics, when PEEP was increased at 10 and 15cmH₂O; c) at higher levels of PEEP, EVLWI was lower in ALI/ARDS patients with IAH as compared with those with normal IAP. Conclusions: IAH, within the limits of IAP measured in the present study, does not affect interpretation of respiratory mechanics, alveolar recruitment and hemodynamics.

The vasoactive inotropic score (VIS) is calculated as a weighted sum of all administered vasopressor and inotropic medications and quantifies the amount of pharmacological cardiovascular support in patients with the most severe combined cardiopulmonary failure supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). This study evaluated (1) whether VIS prior to the initiation of ECMO is an independent predictor of survival in these patients and (2) whether VIS might guide the selection of the appropriate extracorporeal cannulation modality (Veno-Venous ‘V-V’ or Veno-VenoArterial ‘V-VA’). In this study, 39 V-VA and 182 V-V ECMO runs were retrospectively analyzed. VIS immediately prior to ECMO initiation (pre-ECMO) was 40 (10/113) in all patients, 30 (10/80) in patients with V-V ECMO and 207 (60/328) in patients with V-VA ECMO. Pre-ECMO VIS was an independent predictor of survival in univariate (AUC = 0.68, p = 0.001) and multi-variable analyses (p = 0.02). Pre-ECMO VIS was clearly associated with mortality (p = 0.001) in V-V ECMO group; however, V-VA ECMO disrupted this association (p = 0.18). Therefore, in conjunction with echocardiography, VIS might assist in selecting the appropriate ECMO cannulation strategy as patients with a pre-ECMO VIS ≥ 61.4 had significantly lower odds of survival compared to those with lower VIS.

Background: Prone positioning in combination with the application of low tidal volume and adequate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improves survival in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the effects of PEEP on end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (Ptp_exp) during prone positioning require clarification. For this purpose, the effects of three different PEEP titration strategies on Ptp_exp, respiratory mechanics, mechanical power, gas exchange, and hemodynamics were evaluated comparing supine and prone positioning. Methods: In forty consecutive patients with moderate to severe ARDS protective ventilation with PEEP titrated according to three different titration strategies was evaluated during supine and prone positioning: (A) ARDS Network recommendations (PEEP_ARDSNetwork), (B) the lowest static elastance of the respiratory system (PEEP_Estat,RS), and (C) targeting a positive Ptp_exp (PEEP_Ptpexp). The primary endpoint was to analyze whether Ptp_exp differed significantly according to PEEP titration strategy during supine and prone positioning. Results: Ptp_exp increased progressively with prone positioning compared with supine positioning as well as with PEEP_Estat,RS and PEEP_Ptpexp compared with PEEP_ARDSNetwork (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). PEEP was lower during prone positioning with PEEP_Estat,RS and PEEP_Ptpexp (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). During supine positioning, mechanical power increased progressively with PEEP_Estat,RS and PEEP_Ptpexp compared with PEEP_ARDSNetwork, and prone positioning attenuated this effect (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). Prone compared with supine positioning significantly improved oxygenation (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001) while hemodynamics remained stable in both positions. Conclusions: Prone positioning increased transpulmonary pressures while improving oxygenation and hemodynamics in patients with moderate to severe ARDS when PEEP was titrated according to the ARDS Network lower PEEP table. This PEEP titration strategy minimized parameters associated with ventilator-induced lung injury induction, such as transpulmonary driving pressure and mechanical power. We propose that a lower PEEP strategy (PEEP_ARDSNetwork) in combination with prone positioning may be part of a lung protective ventilation strategy in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00017449). Registered June 27, 2019. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00017449

Background: Superobesity and laparoscopic surgery promote negative end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure that causes atelectasis formation and impaired respiratory mechanics. The authors hypothesized that end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure differs between fixed and individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies and mediates their effects on respiratory mechanics, end-expiratory lung volume, gas exchange, and hemodynamic parameters in superobese patients. Methods: In this prospective, nonrandomized crossover study including 40 superobese patients (body mass index 57.3 ± 6.4 kg/m²) undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery, PEEP was set according to (1) a fixed level of 8 cm H₂O (PEEP_Empirical), (2) the highest respiratory system compliance (PEEP_Compliance), or (3) an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure targeting 0 cm H₂O (PEEP_Transpul) at different surgical positioning. The primary endpoint was end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure at different surgical positioning; secondary endpoints were respiratory mechanics, end-expiratory lung volume, gas exchange, and hemodynamic parameters. Results: Individualized PEEP_Compliance compared to fixed PEEP_Empirical resulted in higher PEEP (supine, 17.2 ± 2.4 vs. 8.0 ± 0.0 cm H₂O; supine with pneumoperitoneum, 21.5 ± 2.5 vs. 8.0 ± 0.0 cm H₂O; and beach chair with pneumoperitoneum; 15.8 ± 2.5 vs. 8.0 ± 0.0 cm H₂O; P < 0.001 each) and less negative end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (supine, −2.9 ± 2.0 vs. −10.6 ± 2.6 cm H₂O; supine with pneumoperitoneum, −2.9 ± 2.0 vs. −14.1 ± 3.7 cm H₂O; and beach chair with pneumoperitoneum, −2.8 ± 2.2 vs. −9.2 ± 3.7 cm H₂O; P < 0.001 each). Titrated PEEP, end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure, and lung volume were lower with PEEP_Compliance compared to PEEP_Transpul (P < 0.001 each). Respiratory system and transpulmonary driving pressure and mechanical power normalized to respiratory system compliance were reduced using PEEP_Compliance compared to PEEP_Transpul. Conclusions: In superobese patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, individualized PEEP_Compliance may provide a feasible compromise regarding end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures compared to PEEP_Empirical and PEEP_Transpul, because PEEP_Compliance with slightly negative end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures improved respiratory mechanics, lung volumes, and oxygenation while preserving cardiac output. Editor’s Perspective: What We Already Know about This Topic: What This Article Tells Us That Is New:

Background: Even an ultraprotective ventilation strategy in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) might induce ventilator-induced lung injury and apneic ventilation with the sole application of positive end-expiratory pressure may, therefore, be an alternative ventilation strategy. We, therefore, compared the effects of ultraprotective ventilation with apneic ventilation on oxygenation, oxygen delivery, respiratory system mechanics, hemodynamics, strain, air distribution and recruitment of the lung parenchyma in ARDS patients with ECMO. Methods: In a prospective, monocentric physiological study, 24 patients with severe ARDS managed with ECMO were ventilated using ultraprotective ventilation (tidal volume 3 ml/kg of predicted body weight) with a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) of 21%, 50% and 90%. Patients were then treated with apneic ventilation with analogous FiO₂. The primary endpoint was the effect of the ventilation strategy on oxygenation and oxygen delivery. The secondary endpoints were mechanical power, stress, regional air distribution, lung recruitment and the resulting strain, evaluated by chest computed tomography, associated with the application of PEEP (apneic ventilation) and/or low V_T (ultraprotective ventilation). Results: Protective ventilation, compared to apneic ventilation, improved oxygenation (arterial partial pressure of oxygen, p < 0.001 with FiO₂ of 50% and 90%) and reduced cardiac output. Both ventilation strategies preserved oxygen delivery independent of the FiO₂. Protective ventilation increased driving pressure, stress, strain, mechanical power, as well as induced additional recruitment in the non-dependent lung compared to apneic ventilation. Conclusions: In patients with severe ARDS managed with ECMO, ultraprotective ventilation compared to apneic ventilation improved oxygenation, but increased stress, strain, and mechanical power. Apneic ventilation might be considered as one of the options in the initial phase of ECMO treatment in severe ARDS patients to facilitate lung rest and prevent ventilator-induced lung injury. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00013967). Registered 02/09/2018. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00013967.

Introduction: To test the hypothesis that open lung (OL) ventilatory strategies using high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) or controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) compared to CMV with lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improve respiratory function while minimizing lung injury as well as systemic inflammation, a prospective randomized study was performed at a university animal laboratory using three different lung conditions. Methods: Seventy-eight adult male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) uninjured (UI), (2) saline washout (SW), and (3) intraperitoneal/intravenous Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced lung injury. Within each group, animals were further randomized to (1) OL with HFOV, (2) OL with CMV with "best" PEEP set according to the minimal static elastance of the respiratory system (BP-CMV), and (3) CMV with low PEEP (LP-CMV). They were then ventilated for 6 hours. HFOV was set with mean airway pressure (P_meanHFOV) at 2 cm H₂O above the mean airway pressure recorded at BP-CMV (P_meanBP-CMV) following a recruitment manoeuvre. Six animals served as unventilated controls (C). Gas-exchange, respiratory system mechanics, lung histology, plasma cytokines, as well as cytokines and types I and III procollagen (PCI and PCIII) mRNA expression in lung tissue were measured. Results: We found that (1) in both SW and LPS, HFOV and BP-CMV improved gas exchange and mechanics with lower lung injury compared to LP-CMV, (2) in SW; HFOV yielded better oxygenation than BP-CMV; (3) in SW, interleukin (IL)-6 mRNA expression was lower during BP-CMV and HFOV compared to LP-CMV, while in LPS inflammatory response was independent of the ventilatory mode; and (4) PCIII mRNA expression decreased in all groups and ventilatory modes, with the decrease being highest in LPS. Conclusions: Open lung ventilatory strategies associated with HFOV or BP-CMV improved respiratory function and minimized lung injury compared to LP-CMV. Therefore, HFOV with Pmean_HFOV set 2 cm H₂O above the Pmean_BP-CMV following a recruitment manoeuvre is as beneficial as BP-CMV.