The adverse effects of mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) arise from two main causes: unphysiological increases of transpulmonary pressure and unphysiological increases/decreases of pleural pressure during positive or negative pressure ventilation. The transpulmonary pressure-related side effects primarily account for ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) while the pleural pressure-related side effects primarily account for hemodynamic alterations. The changes of transpulmonary pressure and pleural pressure resulting from a given applied driving pressure depend on the relative elastances of the lung and chest wall. The term ‘volutrauma’ should refer to excessive strain, while ‘barotrauma’ should refer to excessive stress. Strains exceeding 1.5, corresponding to a stress above ~20 cmH2O in humans, are severely damaging in experimental animals. Apart from high tidal volumes and high transpulmonary pressures, the respiratory rate and inspiratory flow may also play roles in the genesis of VILI. We do not know which fraction of mortality is attributable to VILI with ventilation comparable to that reported in recent clinical practice surveys (tidal volume ~7.5 ml/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ~8 cmH2O, rate ~20 bpm, associated mortality ~35%). Therefore, a more complete and individually personalized understanding of ARDS lung mechanics and its interaction with the ventilator is needed to improve future care. Knowledge of functional lung size would allow the quantitative estimation of strain. The determination of lung inhomogeneity/stress raisers would help assess local stresses; the measurement of lung recruitability would guide PEEP selection to optimize lung size and homogeneity. Finding a safety threshold for mechanical power, normalized to functional lung volume and tissue heterogeneity, may help precisely define the safety limits of ventilating the individual in question. When a mechanical ventilation set cannot be found to avoid an excessive risk of VILI, alternative methods (such as the artificial lung) should be considered.

Several factors have been recognized as possible triggers of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). The first is pressure (thus the ‘barotrauma’), then the volume (hence the ‘volutrauma’), finally the cyclic opening-closing of the lung units (‘atelectrauma’). Less attention has been paid to the respiratory rate and the flow, although both theoretical considerations and experimental evidence attribute them a significant role in the generation of VILI. The initial injury to the lung parenchyma is necessarily mechanical and it could manifest as an unphysiological distortion of the extracellular matrix and/or as micro-fractures in the hyaluronan, likely the most fragile polymer embedded in the matrix. The order of magnitude of the energy required to break a molecular bond between the hyaluronan and the associated protein is 1.12×10^-16 Joules (J), 70–90% higher than the average energy delivered by a single breath of 1L assuming a lung elastance of 10 cmH₂O/L (0.5 J). With a normal statistical distribution of the bond strength some polymers will be exposed each cycle to an energy large enough to rupture. Both the extracellular matrix distortion and the polymer fractures lead to inflammatory increase of capillary permeability with edema if a pulmonary blood flow is sufficient. The mediation analysis of higher vs. lower tidal volume and PEEP studies suggests that the driving pressure, more than tidal volume, is the best predictor of VILI, as inferred by increased mortality. This is not surprising, as both tidal volume and respiratory system elastance (resulting in driving pressure) may independently contribute to the mortality. For the same elastance driving pressure is a predictor similar to plateau pressure or tidal volume. Driving pressure is one of the components of the mechanical power, which also includes respiratory rate, flow and PEEP. Finding the threshold for mechanical power would greatly simplify assessment and prevention of VILI.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) is a grading system adopted worldwide by anesthesiologists to classify the overall health status of patients. Its importance is demonstrated not only by its routinely use in clinical practice, but also by its deployment in other healthcare-related environments. However, a weak/moderate inter-observer agreement for ASA-PS has been previously shown and, although definitions and clinical examples of each class were provided by ASA, doubts remain on the individual factors influencing the assignment to an ASA-PS class. The aim of this study was to investigate whether and how an anesthesiologist's experience conditions the classification into a specific ASA-PS class. An online survey presenting 8 fictitious patients was administered to a group of Italian anesthesiologists and residents of different experience. Respondents were asked to assign each one of the 8 patients to a specific ASA-PS class. For the comparisons, anesthesiologists were subdivided into 5 classes according to the experience as anesthesiologists. Six hundred one surveys were correctly completed. The highest mean number of correct answers was obtained by residents, and this number decreased progressively with increasing work experience. The lowest value was recorded in the most experienced group (≥ 20 years of experience). Low inter-reliability and experience-dependence of ASA-PS must be taken into account when evaluating a patient, particularly in settings where wide differences in experience are present.

The acute respiratory distress (ARDS) lung is usually characterized by a high degree of inhomogeneity. Indeed, the same lung may show a wide spectrum of aeration alterations, ranging from completely gasless regions, up to hyperinflated areas. This inhomogeneity is normally caused by the presence of lung edema and/or anatomical variations, and is deeply influenced by the gravitational forces. For any given airway pressure generated by the ventilator, the pressure acting directly on the lung (i.e., the transpulmonary pressure or lung stress) is determined by two main factors: 1) the ratio between lung elastance and the total elastance of the respiratory system (which has been shown to vary widely in ARDS patients, between 0.2 and 0.8); and 2) the lung size. In severe ARDS, the ventilatable parenchyma is strongly reduced in size (‘baby lung’); its resting volume could be as low as 300 mL, and the total inspiratory capacity could be reached with a tidal volume of 750–900 mL, thus generating lethal stress and strain in the lung. Although this is possible in theory, it does not explain the occurrence of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) in lungs ventilated with much lower tidal volumes. In fact, the ARDS lung contains areas acting as local stress multipliers and they could multiply the stress by a factor ~ 2, meaning that in those regions the transpulmonary pressure could be double that present in other parts of the same lung. These ‘stress raisers’ widely correspond to the inhomogenous areas of the ARDS lung and can be present in up to 40% of the lung. Although most of the literature on VILI concentrates on the possible dangers of tidal volume, mechanical ventilation in fact delivers mechanical power (i.e., energy per unit of time) to the lung parenchyma, which reacts to it according to its anatomical structure and pathophysiological status. The determinants of mechanical power are not only the tidal volume, but also respiratory rate, inspiratory flow, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). In the end, decreasing mechanical power, increasing lung homogeneity, and avoiding reaching the anatomical limits of the ‘baby lung’ should be the goals for safe ventilation in ARDS.