This JAMA Insights Clinical Update discusses the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2–related respiratory failure, distinguishing unique L and H phenotypes and their i

Ventilation is inherently a dynamic process. The present-day clinical practice of concentrating on the static inflation characteristics of the individual tidal cycle (plateau pressure, positive end-expiratory pressure, and their difference [driving pressure, the ratio of Vt to compliance]) does not take into account key factors shown experimentally to influence ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). These include rate of airway pressure change (influenced by flow amplitude, inspiratory time fraction, and inspiratory inflation contour) and cycling frequency. Energy must be expended to cause injury, and the product of applied stress and resulting strain determines the energy delivered to the lungs per breathing cycle. Understanding the principles of VILI energetics may provide valuable insights and guidance to intensivists for safer clinical practice. In this interpretive review, we highlight that the injuring potential of the inflation pattern depends upon tissue vulnerability, the number of intolerable high-energy cycles applied in unit time (mechanical power), and the duration of that exposure. Yet, as attractive as this energy/power hypothesis for encapsulating the drivers of VILI may be for clinical applications, we acknowledge that even these all-inclusive and measurable ergonomic parameters (energy per cycle and power) are still too bluntly defined to pinpoint the precise biophysical link between ventilation strategy and tissue injury.

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.

Auto–positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP; AP) and dynamic hyperinflation (DH) may affect hemodynamics, predispose to barotrauma, increase work of breathing, cause dyspnea, disrupt patient–ventilator synchrony, confuse monitoring of hemodynamics and respiratory system mechanics, and interfere with the effectiveness of pressure-regulated ventilation. Although basic knowledge regarding the clinical physiology and management of AP during mechanical ventilation has evolved impressively over the 30 years since DH and AP were first brought to clinical attention, novel and clinically relevant characteristics of this complex phenomenon continue to be described. This discussion reviews some of the more important aspects of AP that bear on the care of the ventilated patient with critical illness.

To synthesize the emerging body of experimental, observational, and clinical trial data into a practical guideline for safe and effective ventilatory management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Relevant, peer-reviewed, scientific literature and personal observations from clinical practice. Relevant experimental studies and high-impact observational and clinical trials of acute respiratory distress syndrome management. Detailed review of information contained in published scientific work. Interactive discussions between the authors that culminated in our consensus view of appropriate management. Prevention of ventilator-induced lung injury while accomplishing the essential life-supporting roles of mechanical ventilation is a complex undertaking that requires application of principles founded on a broad experimental and clinical database and on the results of well-executed clinical trials. At the bedside, execution of an effective lung-protective ventilation strategy remains an empirical process best guided by integrated physiology and a readiness to revise the management approach depending on the individual's response.