Jeremy R Beitler1, Todd Sarge2, Valerie M Banner-Goodspeed2, Michelle N Gong3, Deborah Cook4, Victor Novack5, Stephen H Loring2, Daniel Talmor2. 1. Center for Acute Respiratory Failure and Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, New York, New York. 2. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Critical Care Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York. 4. Department of Medicine, St Joseph's Hospital and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5. Soroka Clinical Research Center, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Abstract
Importance: Adjusting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to offset pleural pressure might attenuate lung injury and improve patient outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether PEEP titration guided by esophageal pressure (PES), an estimate of pleural pressure, was more effective than empirical high PEEP-fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) in moderate to severe ARDS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2 randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 hospitals in North America. Two hundred mechanically ventilated patients aged 16 years and older with moderate to severe ARDS (Pao2:Fio2 ≤200 mm Hg) were enrolled between October 31, 2012, and September 14, 2017; long-term follow-up was completed July 30, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to PES-guided PEEP (n = 102) or empirical high PEEP-Fio2 (n = 98). All participants received low tidal volumes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a ranked composite score incorporating death and days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors through day 28. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors, and need for rescue therapy. Results: Two hundred patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 56 [16] years; 46% female) and completed 28-day follow-up. The primary composite end point was not significantly different between treatment groups (probability of more favorable outcome with PES-guided PEEP: 49.6% [95% CI, 41.7% to 57.5%]; P = .92). At 28 days, 33 of 102 patients (32.4%) assigned to PES-guided PEEP and 30 of 98 patients (30.6%) assigned to empirical PEEP-Fio2 died (risk difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -11.1% to 14.6%]; P = .88). Days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors was not significantly different (median [interquartile range]: 22 [15-24] vs 21 [16.5-24] days; median difference, 0 [95% CI, -1 to 2] days; P = .85). Patients assigned to PES-guided PEEP were significantly less likely to receive rescue therapy (4/102 [3.9%] vs 12/98 [12.2%]; risk difference, -8.3% [95% CI, -15.8% to -0.8%]; P = .04). None of the 7 other prespecified secondary clinical end points were significantly different. Adverse events included gross barotrauma, which occurred in 6 patients with PES-guided PEEP and 5 patients with empirical PEEP-Fio2. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate to severe ARDS, PES-guided PEEP, compared with empirical high PEEP-Fio2, resulted in no significant difference in death and days free from mechanical ventilation. These findings do not support PES-guided PEEP titration in ARDS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01681225.
Importance: Adjusting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to offset pleural pressure might attenuate lung injury and improve patient outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether PEEP titration guided by esophageal pressure (PES), an estimate of pleural pressure, was more effective than empirical high PEEP-fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) in moderate to severe ARDS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2 randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 hospitals in North America. Two hundred mechanically ventilated patients aged 16 years and older with moderate to severe ARDS (Pao2:Fio2 ≤200 mm Hg) were enrolled between October 31, 2012, and September 14, 2017; long-term follow-up was completed July 30, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to PES-guided PEEP (n = 102) or empirical high PEEP-Fio2 (n = 98). All participants received low tidal volumes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a ranked composite score incorporating death and days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors through day 28. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors, and need for rescue therapy. Results: Two hundred patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 56 [16] years; 46% female) and completed 28-day follow-up. The primary composite end point was not significantly different between treatment groups (probability of more favorable outcome with PES-guided PEEP: 49.6% [95% CI, 41.7% to 57.5%]; P = .92). At 28 days, 33 of 102 patients (32.4%) assigned to PES-guided PEEP and 30 of 98 patients (30.6%) assigned to empirical PEEP-Fio2 died (risk difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -11.1% to 14.6%]; P = .88). Days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors was not significantly different (median [interquartile range]: 22 [15-24] vs 21 [16.5-24] days; median difference, 0 [95% CI, -1 to 2] days; P = .85). Patients assigned to PES-guided PEEP were significantly less likely to receive rescue therapy (4/102 [3.9%] vs 12/98 [12.2%]; risk difference, -8.3% [95% CI, -15.8% to -0.8%]; P = .04). None of the 7 other prespecified secondary clinical end points were significantly different. Adverse events included gross barotrauma, which occurred in 6 patients with PES-guided PEEP and 5 patients with empirical PEEP-Fio2. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate to severe ARDS, PES-guided PEEP, compared with empirical high PEEP-Fio2, resulted in no significant difference in death and days free from mechanical ventilation. These findings do not support PES-guided PEEP titration in ARDS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01681225.
Authors: Pierpaolo Terragni; Luciana Mascia; Vito Fanelli; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; V Marco Ranieri Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: João Batista Borges; Eduardo L V Costa; Fernando Suarez-Sipmann; Charles Widström; Anders Larsson; Marcelo Amato; Göran Hedenstierna Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: David T Huang; Derek C Angus; Marc Moss; B Taylor Thompson; Niall D Ferguson; Adit Ginde; Michelle Ng Gong; Stephanie Gundel; Douglas L Hayden; R Duncan Hite; Peter C Hou; Catherine L Hough; Theodore J Iwashyna; Kathleen D Liu; Daniel S Talmor; Donald M Yealy Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-01
Authors: Maureen O Meade; Deborah J Cook; Gordon H Guyatt; Arthur S Slutsky; Yaseen M Arabi; D James Cooper; Andrew R Davies; Lori E Hand; Qi Zhou; Lehana Thabane; Peggy Austin; Stephen Lapinsky; Alan Baxter; James Russell; Yoanna Skrobik; Juan J Ronco; Thomas E Stewart Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rodrigo A Cornejo; Juan C Díaz; Eduardo A Tobar; Alejandro R Bruhn; Cristobal A Ramos; Roberto A González; Claudia A Repetto; Carlos M Romero; Luis R Gálvez; Osvaldo Llanos; Daniel H Arellano; Wilson R Neira; Gonzalo A Díaz; Aníbal J Zamorano; Gonzalo L Pereira Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Roy G Brower; Paul N Lanken; Neil MacIntyre; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; Marek Ancukiewicz; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-22 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Victor Novack; Jeremy R Beitler; Maayan Yitshak-Sade; B Taylor Thompson; David A Schoenfeld; Gordon Rubenfeld; Daniel Talmor; Samuel M Brown Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: J C Richard; S Marque; A Gros; M Muller; G Prat; G Beduneau; J P Quenot; J Dellamonica; R Tapponnier; E Soum; L Bitker; J Richecoeur Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 17.440