The role of noninvasive respiratory support in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is debated.¹ Noninvasive ventilation may help avoid endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation; however, the rate of treatment failure can be as high as 60%, and patients exposed to delayed intubation experience worse clinical outcome.^2-4

Rationale: Response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in acute respiratory distress syndrome depends on recruitability. We propose a bedside approach to estimate recruitability accounting for the presence of complete airway closure. Objectives: To validate a single-breath method for measuring recruited volume and test whether it differentiates patients with different responses to PEEP. Methods: Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome were ventilated at 15 and 5 cm H2O of PEEP. Multiple pressure–volume curves were compared with a single-breath technique. Abruptly releasing PEEP (from 15 to 5 cm H2O) increases expired volume: the difference between this volume and the volume predicted by compliance at low PEEP (or above airway opening pressure) estimated the recruited volume by PEEP. This recruited volume divided by the effective pressure change gave the compliance of the recruited lung; the ratio of this compliance to the compliance at low PEEP gave the recruitment-to-inflation ratio. Response to PEEP was compared between high and low recruiters based on this ratio. Measurements and Main Results: Forty-five patients were enrolled. Four patients had airway closure higher than high PEEP, and thus recruitment could not be assessed. In others, recruited volume measured by the experimental and the reference methods were strongly correlated (R2 = 0.798; P < 0.0001) with small bias (−21 ml). The recruitment-to-inflation ratio (median, 0.5; range, 0–2.0) correlated with both oxygenation at low PEEP and the oxygenation response; at PEEP 15, high recruiters had better oxygenation (P = 0.004), whereas low recruiters experienced lower systolic arterial pressure (P = 0.008). Conclusions: A single-breath method quantifies recruited volume. The recruitment-to-inflation ratio might help to characterize lung recruitability at the bedside. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02457741).

Rationale: Esophageal manometry is the clinically available method to estimate pleural pressure, thus enabling calculation of transpulmonary pressure (Pl). However, many concerns make it uncertain in which lung region esophageal manometry reflects local Pl. Objectives: To determine the accuracy of esophageal pressure (Pes) and in which regions esophageal manometry reflects pleural pressure (Ppl) and Pl; to assess whether lung stress in nondependent regions can be estimated at end-inspiration from Pl. Methods: In lung-injured pigs (n = 6) and human cadavers (n = 3), Pes was measured across a range of positive end-expiratory pressure, together with directly measured Ppl in nondependent and dependent pleural regions. All measurements were obtained with minimal nonstressed volumes in the pleural sensors and esophageal balloons. Expiratory and inspiratory Pl was calculated by subtracting local Ppl or Pes from airway pressure; inspiratory Pl was also estimated by subtracting Ppl (calculated from chest wall and respiratory system elastance) from the airway plateau pressure. Measurements and Main Results: In pigs and human cadavers, expiratory and inspiratory Pl using Pes closely reflected values in dependent to middle lung (adjacent to the esophagus). Inspiratory Pl estimated from elastance ratio reflected the directly measured nondependent values. Conclusions: These data support the use of esophageal manometry in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Assuming correct calibration, expiratory Pl derived from Pes reflects Pl in dependent to middle lung, where atelectasis usually predominates; inspiratory Pl estimated from elastance ratio may indicate the highest level of lung stress in nondependent “baby” lung, where it is vulnerable to ventilator-induced lung injury.

The role of spontaneous breathing among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS is debated: while avoidance of intubation with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or high-flow nasal cannula improves clinical outcome, treatment failure worsens mortality. Recent data suggest patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) as a possible mechanism aggravating lung damage in these patients. P-SILI is generated by intense inspiratory effort yielding: (A) swings in transpulmonary pressure (i.e. lung stress) causing the inflation of big volumes in an aerated compartment markedly reduced by the disease-induced aeration loss; (B) abnormal increases in transvascular pressure, favouring negative-pressure pulmonary edema; (C) an intra-tidal shift of gas between different lung zones, generated by different transmission of muscular force (i.e. pendelluft); (D) diaphragm injury. Experimental data suggest that not all subjects are exposed to the development of P-SILI: patients with a PaO2/FiO2 ratio below 200 mmHg may represent the most at risk population. For them, current evidence indicates that high-flow nasal cannula alone may be superior to intermittent sessions of low-PEEP NIV delivered through face mask, while continuous high-PEEP helmet NIV likely promotes treatment success and may mitigate lung injury. The optimal initial noninvasive treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure/ARDS remains however uncertain; high-flow nasal cannula and high-PEEP helmet NIV are promising tools to enhance success of the approach, but the best balance between these techniques has yet to be identified. During noninvasive support, careful clinical monitoring remains mandatory for prompt detection of treatment failure, in order not to delay intubation and protective ventilation.