Fabienne D Simonis1, Ary Serpa Neto1,2, Jan M Binnekade1, Annemarije Braber3, Karina C M Bruin4, Rogier M Determann5, Geert-Jan Goekoop4, Jeroen Heidt6, Janneke Horn1, Gerard Innemee6, Evert de Jonge7, Nicole P Juffermans1, Peter E Spronk3, Lotte M Steuten8, Pieter Roel Tuinman9, Rob B P de Wilde7, Marijn Vriends9, Marcelo Gama de Abreu10, Paolo Pelosi11, Marcus J Schultz1,12. 1. Department of Intensive Care & Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Intensive Care, Gelre Hospitals, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Intensive Care, Westfriesgasthuis, Hoorn, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Intensive Care, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Intensive Care Tergooi, Hilversum, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 8. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 9. Department of Intensive Care & REVIVE Research VUmc Intensive Care, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 10. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Pulmonary Engineering Group, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany. 11. Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. 12. Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Abstract
Importance: It remains uncertain whether invasive ventilation should use low tidal volumes in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether a low tidal volume ventilation strategy is more effective than an intermediate tidal volume strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2014, through August 20, 2017, including patients without ARDS expected to not be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation from 6 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Interventions: Invasive ventilation using low tidal volumes (n = 477) or intermediate tidal volumes (n = 484). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28. Secondary outcomes included length of ICU and hospital stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; and development of ARDS, pneumonia, severe atelectasis, or pneumothorax. Results: In total, 961 patients (65% male), with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-76), were enrolled. At day 28, 475 patients in the low tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26), and 480 patients in the intermediate tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26) (mean difference, -0.27 [95% CI, -1.74 to 1.19]; P = .71). There was no significant difference in ICU (median, 6 vs 6 days; 0.39 [-1.09 to 1.89]; P = .58) and hospital (median, 14 vs 15 days; -0.60 [-3.52 to 2.31]; P = .68) length of stay or 28-day (34.9% vs 32.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 [0.90 to 1.40]; P = .30) and 90-day (39.1% vs 37.8%; HR, 1.07 [0.87 to 1.31]; P = .54) mortality. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients developing the following adverse events: ARDS (3.8% vs 5.0%; risk ratio [RR], 0.86 [0.59 to 1.24]; P = .38), pneumonia (4.2% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.07 [0.78 to 1.47]; P = .67), severe atelectasis (11.4% vs 11.2%; RR, 1.00 [0.81 to 1.23]; P = .94), and pneumothorax (1.8% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.16 [0.73 to 1.84]; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours of randomization, a low tidal volume strategy did not result in a greater number of ventilator-free days than an intermediate tidal volume strategy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02153294.
RCT Entities:
Importance: It remains uncertain whether invasive ventilation should use low tidal volumes in critically illpatients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether a low tidal volume ventilation strategy is more effective than an intermediate tidal volume strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2014, through August 20, 2017, including patients without ARDS expected to not be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation from 6 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Interventions: Invasive ventilation using low tidal volumes (n = 477) or intermediate tidal volumes (n = 484). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28. Secondary outcomes included length of ICU and hospital stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; and development of ARDS, pneumonia, severe atelectasis, or pneumothorax. Results: In total, 961 patients (65% male), with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-76), were enrolled. At day 28, 475 patients in the low tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26), and 480 patients in the intermediate tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26) (mean difference, -0.27 [95% CI, -1.74 to 1.19]; P = .71). There was no significant difference in ICU (median, 6 vs 6 days; 0.39 [-1.09 to 1.89]; P = .58) and hospital (median, 14 vs 15 days; -0.60 [-3.52 to 2.31]; P = .68) length of stay or 28-day (34.9% vs 32.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 [0.90 to 1.40]; P = .30) and 90-day (39.1% vs 37.8%; HR, 1.07 [0.87 to 1.31]; P = .54) mortality. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients developing the following adverse events: ARDS (3.8% vs 5.0%; risk ratio [RR], 0.86 [0.59 to 1.24]; P = .38), pneumonia (4.2% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.07 [0.78 to 1.47]; P = .67), severe atelectasis (11.4% vs 11.2%; RR, 1.00 [0.81 to 1.23]; P = .94), and pneumothorax (1.8% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.16 [0.73 to 1.84]; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours of randomization, a low tidal volume strategy did not result in a greater number of ventilator-free days than an intermediate tidal volume strategy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02153294.
Authors: Amal Jubran; Gerald Lawm; Lisa A Duffner; Eileen G Collins; Dorothy M Lanuza; Leslie A Hoffman; Martin J Tobin Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Ary Serpa Neto; Fabienne D Simonis; Carmen S V Barbas; Michelle Biehl; Rogier M Determann; Jonathan Elmer; Gilberto Friedman; Ognjen Gajic; Joshua N Goldstein; Janneke Horn; Nicole P Juffermans; Rita Linko; Roselaine Pinheiro de Oliveira; Sugantha Sundar; Daniel Talmor; Esther K Wolthuis; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Lonneke A van Vught; Peter M C Klein Klouwenberg; Cristian Spitoni; Brendon P Scicluna; Maryse A Wiewel; Janneke Horn; Marcus J Schultz; Peter Nürnberg; Marc J M Bonten; Olaf L Cremer; Tom van der Poll Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christian Putensen; Nils Theuerkauf; Jörg Zinserling; Hermann Wrigge; Paolo Pelosi Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: V Marco Ranieri; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Niall D Ferguson; Ellen Caldwell; Eddy Fan; Luigi Camporota; Arthur S Slutsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ary Serpa Neto; Carmen S V Barbas; Fabienne D Simonis; Antonio Artigas-Raventós; Jaume Canet; Rogier M Determann; James Anstey; Goran Hedenstierna; Sabrine N T Hemmes; Greet Hermans; Michael Hiesmayr; Markus W Hollmann; Samir Jaber; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Gary H Mills; Rupert M Pearse; Christian Putensen; Werner Schmid; Paolo Severgnini; Roger Smith; Tanja A Treschan; Edda M Tschernko; Marcos F V Melo; Hermann Wrigge; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Fabienne D Simonis; Jan M Binnekade; Annemarije Braber; Harry P Gelissen; Jeroen Heidt; Janneke Horn; Gerard Innemee; Evert de Jonge; Nicole P Juffermans; Peter E Spronk; Lotte M Steuten; Pieter Roel Tuinman; Marijn Vriends; Gwendolyn de Vreede; Rob B de Wilde; Ary Serpa Neto; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Trials Date: 2015-05-24 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: E W Ely; S Gautam; R Margolin; J Francis; L May; T Speroff; B Truman; R Dittus; R Bernard; S K Inouye Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: M Dietrich; C J Reuß; C Beynon; A Hecker; C Jungk; D Michalski; C Nusshag; K Schmidt; M Bernhard; T Brenner; M A Weigand Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Anna Geke Algera; Luigi Pisani; Ary Serpa Neto; Sylvia S den Boer; Frank F H Bosch; Karina Bruin; Pauline M Klooster; Nardo J M Van der Meer; Ralph O Nowitzky; Ilse M Purmer; Mathilde Slabbekoorn; Peter E Spronk; Jan van Vliet; Jan J Weenink; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Marcus J Schultz; Frederique Paulus Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marcos T Tanita; Meriele M Capeletti; Tomás A Moreira; Renan P Petinelli; Lucienne T Q Cardoso; Cintia M C Grion Journal: Int J Burns Trauma Date: 2020-02-15
Authors: Douglas A Colquhoun; Aleda M Leis; Amy M Shanks; Michael R Mathis; Bhiken I Naik; Marcel E Durieux; Sachin Kheterpal; Nathan L Pace; Wanda M Popescu; Robert B Schonberger; Benjamin D Kozower; Dustin M Walters; Justin D Blasberg; Andrew C Chang; Michael F Aziz; Izumi Harukuni; Brandon H Tieu; Randal S Blank Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: George W Williams; Nathaniel K Berg; Alexander Reskallah; Xiaoyi Yuan; Holger K Eltzschig Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 7.892