1887
Volume 2017, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0253-8253
  • E-ISSN: 2227-0426

Abstract

Acute severe respiratory failure poses a major treatment challenge which stubbornly carries high mortality and morbidity rates. Here, we review PaO/FiO (PF) ratio and disease severity, and discuss protective lung ventilation and the rescue therapies, and when to use what? A recent study by Villar and colleagues demonstrated that only 38% of patients who were classified as severe acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS) patients based on the PF ratio met the actual severe ARDS criteria after a standardized ventilator setting. In a recent trial conducted by Caironi1 and colleagues, alteration in the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level affected the PF ratio and disease severity. Using the PF ratio alone as the major determinant for disease severity will increase the risk of selecting the wrong therapy for the patient. Between 1998 and 2000, two prospective randomized controlled trials (RCT's) showed that lower tidal volumes (V) decrease mortality compared with higher V.2,3 Retrospectively, plateau pressure (pPlat) <  32 cmHO was the major difference between survival and non-survival, hence V 4–6 mL/kg of predicted body weight (PBW) and pPlat <  30 cmHO became the standard of care.

Several papers challenged the pPlat value of 30; in 2005, Hager4 and colleagues could not identify a safe upper limit for plateau pressures in patients with ARDS. Moreover, V reduction would have improved the outcome, even in patients who already had pPlat <  30 cmHO. More recently, Amato5 and colleagues demonstrated that driving pressure was the ventilation variable that best stratified risk independently of concomitant variations in PEEP and plateau pressure. This was supported by another retrospective study on ECMO patients by Serpa et al.6 That opened the question: “What is protective lung ventilation?” The two proven rescue therapies to date are: “Prone Position” and “ECMO”.

enhances lung recruitment in a potentially recruitable lung by various mechanisms, releasing the diaphragm, decreasing the effect of heart and lung weight and shape on lung tissue, decreasing the lung compression by the abdomen, and releasing the lower lobes, which improves gas exchange and decreases mortality in severe ARDS patients.

provides extracorporeal gas exchange with no effect on lung recruitment. It affords lung rest and works well for the non-recruitable lung. It has been shown to improve survival for certain groups of patients in high-performance ECMO centers.7

It is important to note that the delay in utilizing such rescue therapies worsen the outcome. PF ratio combined with standardized ventilator setting is superior to PF ratio alone to determine disease severity. This is essential to determine the correct therapy for the right patient. Lung protective ventilation strategy remains the corner stone for decreasing morbidity and mortality in ARDS patients. However, the lung protective concept may require to be tailored to disease severity; pPlat of 30 cmHO might be safe for a patient with moderate ARDS but may be deleterious in the severe ARDS patient. Moreover, the driving pressure as the safety guard needs to be explored in more RCTs. Clear definition of “Failure of conventional ventilation” needs to be agreed upon and a clear pathway for trial of prone ventilation versus directly initiating ECMO therapy needs to be defined.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2017.swacelso.13
2017-02-14
2019-08-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. [1]. Caironi   P., , Carlesso   E., , Cressoni   M., , Chiumello   D., , Moerer   O., , Chiurazzi   C., , Brioni   M., , Bottino   N., , Lazzerini   M., , Bugedo   G., , Quintel   M., , Ranieri   VM., , Gattinoni   L. . Lung recruitability is better estimated according to the Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome at standard 5 cm H2O rather than higher positive end-expiratory pressure: A retrospective cohort study. . Crit Care Med.   2015; ;43: 4 : 781– 790 , DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000770 .
    [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]. Amato   M., , Barbas   C., , Medeiros   D., , Magaldi   R., , Schettino   G., , Lorenzi-Filho   G., , Kairalla   R., , Deheinzelin   D., , Munoz   C., , Oliveira   R., , Takagaki   T., , Carvalho   C. . Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. . N Engl J Med.   1998; ;338: 6 : 347– 354 .
    [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network . Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. . N Engl J Med.   2000; ;342: 18 : 1301– 1308 .
    [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]. Hager   DN., , Krishnan   JA., , Hayden   DL., , Brower   RG., , ARDS Clinical Trials Network. . Tidal volume reduction in patients with acute lung injury when plateau pressures are not high. . Am J Respir Crit Care Med.   2005; ;172: 10 : 1241– 1245 , Epub 2005 Aug .
    [Google Scholar]
  5. [5]. Amato   MB., , Meade   MO., , Slutsky   AS., , Brochard   L., , Costa   EL., , Schoenfeld   DA., , Stewart   TE., , Briel   M., , Talmor   D., , Mercat   A., , Richard   JC., , Carvalho   CR., , Brower   RG. . Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. . N Engl J Med.   2015; ;372: 8 : 747– 755 , DOI:10.1056/NEJMsa1410639 .
    [Google Scholar]
  6. [6]. Serpa Neto   A., , Schmidt   M., , Azevedo   LC., , Bein   T., , Brochard   L., , Beutel   G., , Combes   A. . Associations between ventilator settings during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory hypoxemia and outcome in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: A pooled individual patient data analysis: Mechanical ventilation during ECMO. . Intensive Care Med.   2016; ;42: 11 : 1672– 1684 , Epub 2016 Sep 1 .
    [Google Scholar]
  7. [7]. Peek   GJ., , Mugford   M., , Tiruvoipati   R., , Wilson   A., , Allen   E., , Thalanany   MM., , Hibbert   CL., , Truesdale   A., , Clemens   F., , Cooper   N., , Firmin   RK., , Elbourne   D., , CESAR Trial Collaboration. . Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): A multicentre randomised controlled trial. . Lancet.   2009; ;374: 9698 : 1351– 1363 , DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61069-2 .
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2017.swacelso.13
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error