OBJECTIVE: Since publication of the Respiratory Management of Acute Lung Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARMA) trial in 2000, use of tidal volume (VT) less than or equal to 6 mL/kg predicted body weight with corresponding plateau airway pressures (PPlat) less than or equal to 30 cm H2O has been advocated for acute lung injury. However, compliance with these recommendations is unknown. We therefore investigated VT (mL/kg predicted body weight) and PPlat (cm H2O) practices reported in studies of acute lung injury since ARMA using a systematic literature review (i.e., not a meta-analysis). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies enrolling patients with acute lung injury from May 2000 to June 2013 and reporting VT. DATA EXTRACTION: Whether the study was a randomized controlled trial or a nonrandomized study and performed or not at an Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network center; in randomized controlled trials, the pre- and postrandomization VT (mL/kg predicted body weight) and PPlat (cm H2O) and whether a VT protocol was used postrandomization; in nonrandomized studies, baseline VT and PPlat. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-two randomized controlled trials and 71 nonrandomized studies were included. Since 2000 at acute respiratory distress syndrome Network centers, routine VT was similar comparing randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies (p = 0.25) and unchanged over time (p = 0.75) with a mean value of 6.81 (95% CI, 6.45, 7.18). At non-acute respiratory distress syndrome Network centers, routine VT was also similar when comparing randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies (p = 0.71), but decreased (p = 0.001); the most recent estimate for it was 6.77 (6.22, 7.32). All VT estimates were significantly greater than 6 (p ≤ 0.02). In randomized controlled trials employing VT protocols, routine VT was reduced in both acute respiratory distress syndrome Network (n = 4) and non-acute respiratory distress syndrome Network (n = 11) trials (p ≤ 0.01 for both), but even postrandomization was greater than 6 (6.47 [6.29, 6.65] and 6.80 [6.42, 7.17], respectively; p ≤ 0.0001 for both). In 59 studies providing data, routine PPlat, averaged across acute respiratory distress syndrome Network or non-acute respiratory distress syndrome Network centers, was significantly less than 30 (p ≤ 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: For clinicians treating acute lung injury since 2000, achieving VT less than or equal to 6 mL/kg predicted body weight may not have been as attainable or important as PPlat less than or equal to 30 cm H2O. If so, there may be equipoise to test if VT less than or equal to 6 mL/kg predicted body weight are necessary to improve acute lung injury outcome.
OBJECTIVE: Since publication of the Respiratory Management of Acute Lung Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARMA) trial in 2000, use of tidal volume (VT) less than or equal to 6 mL/kg predicted body weight with corresponding plateau airway pressures (PPlat) less than or equal to 30 cm H2O has been advocated for acute lung injury. However, compliance with these recommendations is unknown. We therefore investigated VT (mL/kg predicted body weight) and PPlat (cm H2O) practices reported in studies of acute lung injury since ARMA using a systematic literature review (i.e., not a meta-analysis). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies enrolling patients with acute lung injury from May 2000 to June 2013 and reporting VT. DATA EXTRACTION: Whether the study was a randomized controlled trial or a nonrandomized study and performed or not at an Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network center; in randomized controlled trials, the pre- and postrandomization VT (mL/kg predicted body weight) and PPlat (cm H2O) and whether a VT protocol was used postrandomization; in nonrandomized studies, baseline VT and PPlat. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-two randomized controlled trials and 71 nonrandomized studies were included. Since 2000 at acute respiratory distress syndrome Network centers, routine VT was similar comparing randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies (p = 0.25) and unchanged over time (p = 0.75) with a mean value of 6.81 (95% CI, 6.45, 7.18). At non-acute respiratory distress syndrome Network centers, routine VT was also similar when comparing randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies (p = 0.71), but decreased (p = 0.001); the most recent estimate for it was 6.77 (6.22, 7.32). All VT estimates were significantly greater than 6 (p ≤ 0.02). In randomized controlled trials employing VT protocols, routine VT was reduced in both acute respiratory distress syndrome Network (n = 4) and non-acute respiratory distress syndrome Network (n = 11) trials (p ≤ 0.01 for both), but even postrandomization was greater than 6 (6.47 [6.29, 6.65] and 6.80 [6.42, 7.17], respectively; p ≤ 0.0001 for both). In 59 studies providing data, routine PPlat, averaged across acute respiratory distress syndrome Network or non-acute respiratory distress syndrome Network centers, was significantly less than 30 (p ≤ 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: For clinicians treating acute lung injury since 2000, achieving VT less than or equal to 6 mL/kg predicted body weight may not have been as attainable or important as PPlat less than or equal to 30 cm H2O. If so, there may be equipoise to test if VT less than or equal to 6 mL/kg predicted body weight are necessary to improve acute lung injury outcome.
Authors: Jesús Villar; Jesús Blanco; José Manuel Añón; Antonio Santos-Bouza; Lluís Blanch; Alfonso Ambrós; Francisco Gandía; Demetrio Carriedo; Fernando Mosteiro; Santiago Basaldúa; Rosa Lidia Fernández; Robert M Kacmarek Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: G R Bernard; A Artigas; K L Brigham; J Carlet; K Falke; L Hudson; M Lamy; J R Legall; A Morris; R Spragg Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1994-03 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Maria Theodoridou; Sotirios Malachias; Sotiris Sourlas; Demetrios N Exarchos; Demetrios Chondros; Charis Roussos; Spyros G Zakynthinos Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Renee D Stapleton; Thomas R Martin; Noel S Weiss; Joseph J Crowley; Stephanie J Gundel; Avery B Nathens; Saadia R Akhtar; John T Ruzinski; Ellen Caldwell; J Randall Curtis; Daren K Heyland; Timothy R Watkins; Polly E Parsons; Julie M Martin; Mark M Wurfel; Teal S Hallstrand; Kathryn A Sims; Margaret J Neff Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: V M Ranieri; P M Suter; C Tortorella; R De Tullio; J M Dayer; A Brienza; F Bruno; A S Slutsky Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-07-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R Phillip Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Jean M Carlet; Julian Bion; Margaret M Parker; Roman Jaeschke; Konrad Reinhart; Derek C Angus; Christian Brun-Buisson; Richard Beale; Thierry Calandra; Jean-Francois Dhainaut; Herwig Gerlach; Maurene Harvey; John J Marini; John Marshall; Marco Ranieri; Graham Ramsay; Jonathan Sevransky; B Taylor Thompson; Sean Townsend; Jeffrey S Vender; Janice L Zimmerman; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Fang Gao Smith; Gavin D Perkins; Simon Gates; Duncan Young; Daniel F McAuley; William Tunnicliffe; Zahid Khan; Sarah E Lamb Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-12-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jonathan D Marhong; Laveena Munshi; Michael Detsky; Teagan Telesnicki; Eddy Fan Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Curtis H Weiss; David W Baker; Shayna Weiner; Meagan Bechel; Margaret Ragland; Alfred Rademaker; Bing Bing Weitner; Abha Agrawal; Richard G Wunderink; Stephen D Persell Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Lindsey Barnes; Robert M Reed; Kalpaj R Parekh; Jay K Bhama; Tahuanty Pena; Srinivasan Rajagopal; Gregory A Schmidt; Julia A Klesney-Tait; Michael Eberlein Journal: Curr Pulmonol Rep Date: 2015-04-26