RATIONALE: In the critically ill patients, lung ultrasound (LUS) is increasingly being used at the bedside for assessing alveolar-interstitial syndrome, lung consolidation, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and pleural effusion. It could be an easily repeatable noninvasive tool for assessing lung recruitment. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to compare the pressure-volume (PV) curve method with LUS for assessing positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)-induced lung recruitment in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome/acute lung injury (ARDS/ALI). METHODS: Thirty patients with ARDS and 10 patients with ALI were prospectively studied. PV curves and LUS were performed in PEEP 0 and PEEP 15 cm H₂O₂. PEEP-induced lung recruitment was measured using the PV curve method. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four LUS entities were defined: consolidation; multiple, irregularly spaced B lines; multiple coalescent B lines; and normal aeration. For each of the 12 lung regions examined, PEEP-induced ultrasound changes were measured, and an ultrasound reaeration score was calculated. A highly significant correlation was found between PEEP-induced lung recruitment measured by PV curves and ultrasound reaeration score (Rho = 0.88; P < 0.0001). An ultrasound reaeration score of +8 or higher was associated with a PEEP-induced lung recruitment greater than 600 ml. An ultrasound lung reaeration score of +4 or less was associated with a PEEP-induced lung recruitment ranging from 75 to 450 ml. A statistically significant correlation was found between LUS reaeration score and PEEP-induced increase in Pa(O₂) (Rho = 0.63; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PEEP-induced lung recruitment can be adequately estimated with bedside LUS. Because LUS cannot assess PEEP-induced lung hyperinflation, it should not be the sole method for PEEP titration.
RATIONALE: In the critically ill patients, lung ultrasound (LUS) is increasingly being used at the bedside for assessing alveolar-interstitial syndrome, lung consolidation, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and pleural effusion. It could be an easily repeatable noninvasive tool for assessing lung recruitment. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to compare the pressure-volume (PV) curve method with LUS for assessing positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)-induced lung recruitment in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome/acute lung injury (ARDS/ALI). METHODS: Thirty patients with ARDS and 10 patients with ALI were prospectively studied. PV curves and LUS were performed in PEEP 0 and PEEP 15 cm H₂O₂. PEEP-induced lung recruitment was measured using the PV curve method. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four LUS entities were defined: consolidation; multiple, irregularly spaced B lines; multiple coalescent B lines; and normal aeration. For each of the 12 lung regions examined, PEEP-induced ultrasound changes were measured, and an ultrasound reaeration score was calculated. A highly significant correlation was found between PEEP-induced lung recruitment measured by PV curves and ultrasound reaeration score (Rho = 0.88; P < 0.0001). An ultrasound reaeration score of +8 or higher was associated with a PEEP-induced lung recruitment greater than 600 ml. An ultrasound lung reaeration score of +4 or less was associated with a PEEP-induced lung recruitment ranging from 75 to 450 ml. A statistically significant correlation was found between LUS reaeration score and PEEP-induced increase in Pa(O₂) (Rho = 0.63; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PEEP-induced lung recruitment can be adequately estimated with bedside LUS. Because LUS cannot assess PEEP-induced lung hyperinflation, it should not be the sole method for PEEP titration.
Authors: Giovanni Volpicelli; Mahmoud Elbarbary; Michael Blaivas; Daniel A Lichtenstein; Gebhard Mathis; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Lawrence Melniker; Luna Gargani; Vicki E Noble; Gabriele Via; Anthony Dean; James W Tsung; Gino Soldati; Roberto Copetti; Belaid Bouhemad; Angelika Reissig; Eustachio Agricola; Jean-Jacques Rouby; Charlotte Arbelot; Andrew Liteplo; Ashot Sargsyan; Fernando Silva; Richard Hoppmann; Raoul Breitkreutz; Armin Seibel; Luca Neri; Enrico Storti; Tomislav Petrovic Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: P H Mayo; R Copetti; D Feller-Kopman; G Mathis; E Maury; S Mongodi; F Mojoli; G Volpicelli; M Zanobetti Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: P Mayo; R Arntfield; M Balik; P Kory; G Mathis; G Schmidt; M Slama; G Volpicelli; N Xirouchaki; A McLean; A Vieillard-Baron Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Bojan Rode; Marinko Vučić; Mladen Siranović; Ana Horvat; Helena Krolo; Mijo Kelečić; Aleksandar Gopčević Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2012-12-11 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Giacomo Baldi; Luna Gargani; Antonio Abramo; Luigia D'Errico; Davide Caramella; Eugenio Picano; Francesco Giunta; Francesco Forfori Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 17.440