Anna Geke Algera1, Luigi Pisani1, Ary Serpa Neto2,3,4, Sylvia S den Boer5, Frank F H Bosch6, Karina Bruin7, Pauline M Klooster8, Nardo J M Van der Meer9, Ralph O Nowitzky10, Ilse M Purmer10, Mathilde Slabbekoorn8, Peter E Spronk11, Jan van Vliet6, Jan J Weenink5, Marcelo Gama de Abreu12, Paolo Pelosi13, Marcus J Schultz1,14,15, Frederique Paulus1,16. 1. Department of Intensive Care and Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Data Analytics Research and Evaluation (DARE) Centre, Austin Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Intensive Care, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem and Hoofddorp, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Intensive Care, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Intensive Care, Westfriesgasthuis, Hoorn, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Intensive Care, Haaglanden MC, the Hague, the Netherlands. 9. Department of Intensive Care, Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands. 10. Department of Intensive Care, Haga Hospital, the Hague, the Netherlands. 11. Department of Intensive Care, Gelre Hospitals, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands. 12. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Pulmonary Engineering Group, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany. 13. Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. 14. Nuffield Department of Medicine, Oxford University, Oxford, England. 15. Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 16. ACHIEVE Centre of Expertise, Faculty of Health, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
Importance: It is uncertain whether invasive ventilation can use lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether a lower PEEP strategy is noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy regarding duration of mechanical ventilation at 28 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: Noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted from October 26, 2017, through December 17, 2019, in 8 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands among 980 patients without ARDS expected not to be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation. Final follow-up was conducted in March 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive invasive ventilation using either lower PEEP, consisting of the lowest PEEP level between 0 and 5 cmH2O (n = 476), or higher PEEP, consisting of a PEEP level of 8 cm H2O (n = 493). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at day 28, with a noninferiority margin for the difference in ventilator-free days at day 28 of -10%. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital lengths of stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; development of ARDS, pneumonia, pneumothorax, severe atelectasis, severe hypoxemia, or need for rescue therapies for hypoxemia; and days with use of vasopressors or sedation. Results: Among 980 patients who were randomized, 969 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 66 [interquartile range {IQR}, 56-74] years; 246 [36%] women). At day 28, 476 patients in the lower PEEP group had a median of 18 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) and 493 patients in the higher PEEP group had a median of 17 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) (mean ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-∞; P = .007 for noninferiority), and the lower boundary of the 95% CI was within the noninferiority margin. Occurrence of severe hypoxemia was 20.6% vs 17.6% (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90-1.51; P = .99) and need for rescue strategy was 19.7% vs 14.6% (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79; adjusted P = .54) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. Mortality at 28 days was 38.4% vs 42.0% (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P = .99) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours, a lower PEEP strategy was noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy with regard to the number of ventilator-free days at day 28. These findings support the use of lower PEEP in patients without ARDS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167580.
RCT Entities:
Importance: It is uncertain whether invasive ventilation can use lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in critically illpatients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether a lower PEEP strategy is noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy regarding duration of mechanical ventilation at 28 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: Noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted from October 26, 2017, through December 17, 2019, in 8 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands among 980 patients without ARDS expected not to be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation. Final follow-up was conducted in March 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive invasive ventilation using either lower PEEP, consisting of the lowest PEEP level between 0 and 5 cm H2O (n = 476), or higher PEEP, consisting of a PEEP level of 8 cm H2O (n = 493). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at day 28, with a noninferiority margin for the difference in ventilator-free days at day 28 of -10%. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital lengths of stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; development of ARDS, pneumonia, pneumothorax, severe atelectasis, severe hypoxemia, or need for rescue therapies for hypoxemia; and days with use of vasopressors or sedation. Results: Among 980 patients who were randomized, 969 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 66 [interquartile range {IQR}, 56-74] years; 246 [36%] women). At day 28, 476 patients in the lower PEEP group had a median of 18 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) and 493 patients in the higher PEEP group had a median of 17 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) (mean ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-∞; P = .007 for noninferiority), and the lower boundary of the 95% CI was within the noninferiority margin. Occurrence of severe hypoxemia was 20.6% vs 17.6% (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90-1.51; P = .99) and need for rescue strategy was 19.7% vs 14.6% (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79; adjusted P = .54) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. Mortality at 28 days was 38.4% vs 42.0% (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P = .99) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours, a lower PEEP strategy was noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy with regard to the number of ventilator-free days at day 28. These findings support the use of lower PEEP in patients without ARDS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167580.
Authors: Matthias Briel; Maureen Meade; Alain Mercat; Roy G Brower; Daniel Talmor; Stephen D Walter; Arthur S Slutsky; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Qi Zhou; Deborah Cook; Laurent Brochard; Jean-Christophe M Richard; Francois Lamontagne; Neera Bhatnagar; Thomas E Stewart; Gordon Guyatt Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Fabienne D Simonis; Ary Serpa Neto; Jan M Binnekade; Annemarije Braber; Karina C M Bruin; Rogier M Determann; Geert-Jan Goekoop; Jeroen Heidt; Janneke Horn; Gerard Innemee; Evert de Jonge; Nicole P Juffermans; Peter E Spronk; Lotte M Steuten; Pieter Roel Tuinman; Rob B P de Wilde; Marijn Vriends; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Marcus J Schultz Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrés Esteban; Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Alfonso Muriel; Niall D Ferguson; Oscar Peñuelas; Victor Abraira; Konstantinos Raymondos; Fernando Rios; Nicolas Nin; Carlos Apezteguía; Damian A Violi; Arnaud W Thille; Laurent Brochard; Marco González; Asisclo J Villagomez; Javier Hurtado; Andrew R Davies; Bin Du; Salvatore M Maggiore; Paolo Pelosi; Luis Soto; Vinko Tomicic; Gabriel D'Empaire; Dimitrios Matamis; Fekri Abroug; Rui P Moreno; Marco Antonio Soares; Yaseen Arabi; Freddy Sandi; Manuel Jibaja; Pravin Amin; Younsuck Koh; Michael A Kuiper; Hans-Henrik Bülow; Amine Ali Zeggwagh; Antonio Anzueto Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-07-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti; Érica Aranha Suzumura; Ligia Nasi Laranjeira; Denise de Moraes Paisani; Lucas Petri Damiani; Helio Penna Guimarães; Edson Renato Romano; Marisa de Moraes Regenga; Luzia Noriko Takahashi Taniguchi; Cassiano Teixeira; Roselaine Pinheiro de Oliveira; Flavia Ribeiro Machado; Fredi Alexander Diaz-Quijano; Meton Soares de Alencar Filho; Israel Silva Maia; Eliana Bernardete Caser; Wilson de Oliveira Filho; Marcos de Carvalho Borges; Priscilla de Aquino Martins; Mirna Matsui; Gustavo Adolfo Ospina-Tascón; Thiago Simões Giancursi; Nelson Dario Giraldo-Ramirez; Silvia Regina Rios Vieira; Maria da Graça Pasquotto de Lima Assef; Mohd Shahnaz Hasan; Wojciech Szczeklik; Fernando Rios; Marcelo Britto Passos Amato; Otávio Berwanger; Carlos Roberto Ribeiro de Carvalho Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maximilian S Schaefer; Ary Serpa Neto; Paolo Pelosi; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Peter Kienbaum; Marcus J Schultz; Tanja Astrid Meyer-Treschan Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Lieuwe D Bos; Cheryl Stips; Laura R Schouten; Lonneke A van Vught; Maryse A Wiewel; Luuk Wieske; Roosmarijn T van Hooijdonk; Marleen Straat; Friso M de Beer; Gerie J Glas; Caroline E Visser; Evert de Jonge; Nicole P Juffermans; Janneke Horn; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Alysson R S Carvalho; Frederico C Jandre; Alexandre V Pino; Fernando A Bozza; Jorge I Salluh; Rosana Rodrigues; Joao H N Soares; Antonio Giannella-Neto Journal: Crit Care Date: 2006 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Charalampos Pierrakos; Anna Geke Algera; Fabienne Simonis; Thomas G V Cherpanath; Wim K Lagrand; Frederique Paulus; Lieuwe D J Bos; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-05-31
Authors: Anna Geke Algera; Charalampos Pierrakos; Michela Botta; Claudio Zimatore; Luigi Pisani; Pieter-Roel Tuinman; Lieuwe D J Bos; Wim K Lagrand; Marcello Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Ary Serpa Neto; Marcus J Schultz; Thomas G V Cherpanath; Frederique Paulus Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Jorge M C Ferreira; Robert Huhle; Sabine Müller; Christian Schnabel; Mirko Mehner; Thea Koch; Marcelo Gama de Abreu Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Serge J H Heines; Bas C T van Bussel; Melanie J Acampo-de Jong; Frank C Bennis; Rob J J van Gassel; Rald V M Groven; Nanon F L Heijnen; Ben J M Hermans; René Hounjet; Johan van Koll; Mark M G Mulder; Marcel C G van de Poll; Frank van Rosmalen; Ruud Segers; Sander Steyns; Ulrich Strauch; Jeanette Tas; Iwan C C van der Horst; Sander M J van Kuijk; Dennis C J J Bergmans Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Wanjun Liu; Gan Tao; Yijun Zhang; Wenyan Xiao; Jin Zhang; Yu Liu; Zongqing Lu; Tianfeng Hua; Min Yang Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-01-18