Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 20197533
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.218
Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Context: Trials comparing higher vs lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in adults with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been underpowered to detect small but potentially important effects on mortality or to explore subgroup differences.
Objectives: To evaluate the association of higher vs lower PEEP with patient-important outcomes in adults with acute lung injury or ARDS who are receiving ventilation with low tidal volumes and to investigate whether these associations differ across prespecified subgroups.
Data sources: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996-January 2010) plus a hand search of conference proceedings (2004-January 2010).
Study selection: Two reviewers independently screened articles to identify studies randomly assigning adults with acute lung injury or ARDS to treatment with higher vs lower PEEP (with low tidal volume ventilation) and also reporting mortality.
Data extraction: Data from 2299 individual patients in 3 trials were analyzed using uniform outcome definitions. Prespecified effect modifiers were tested using multivariable hierarchical regression, adjusting for important prognostic factors and clustering effects.
Results: There were 374 hospital deaths in 1136 patients (32.9%) assigned to treatment with higher PEEP and 409 hospital deaths in 1163 patients (35.2%) assigned to lower PEEP (adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.04; P = .25). Treatment effects varied with the presence or absence of ARDS, defined by a value of 200 mm Hg or less for the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen concentration (P = .02 for interaction). In patients with ARDS (n = 1892), there were 324 hospital deaths (34.1%) in the higher PEEP group and 368 (39.1%) in the lower PEEP group (adjusted RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00; P = .049); in patients without ARDS (n = 404), there were 50 hospital deaths (27.2%) in the higher PEEP group and 44 (19.4%) in the lower PEEP group (adjusted RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.98-1.92; P = .07). Rates of pneumothorax and vasopressor use were similar.
Conclusions: Treatment with higher vs lower levels of PEEP was not associated with improved hospital survival. However, higher levels were associated with improved survival among the subgroup of patients with ARDS.
Comment in
-
How much PEEP in acute lung injury.JAMA. 2010 Mar 3;303(9):883-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.226. JAMA. 2010. PMID: 20197538 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Positioning for acute respiratory distress in hospitalised infants and children.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jun 6;6(6):CD003645. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003645.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 35661343 Free PMC article.
-
Recruitment manoeuvres for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving mechanical ventilation.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 17;11(11):CD006667. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006667.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. PMID: 27855477 Free PMC article.
-
Lung Recruitment Maneuvers for Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017 Oct;14(Supplement_4):S304-S311. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-340OT. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017. PMID: 29043837
-
Higher PEEP versus Lower PEEP Strategies for Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017 Oct;14(Supplement_4):S297-S303. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-338OT. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017. PMID: 29043834
-
High-Frequency Oscillation for Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017 Oct;14(Supplement_4):S289-S296. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-341OT. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017. PMID: 29043832
Cited by
-
Acute respiratory distress syndrome: epidemiology and management approaches.Clin Epidemiol. 2012;4:159-69. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S28800. Epub 2012 Jul 16. Clin Epidemiol. 2012. PMID: 22866017 Free PMC article.
-
Transpulmonary pressure measurements and lung mechanics in patients with early ARDS and SARS-CoV-2.J Crit Care. 2021 Jun;63:106-112. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.02.005. Epub 2021 Feb 25. J Crit Care. 2021. PMID: 33676795 Free PMC article.
-
Positive end-expiratory pressure induced changes in airway driving pressure in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome patients.Crit Care. 2023 Mar 21;27(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04345-5. Crit Care. 2023. PMID: 36945013 Free PMC article.
-
A Modified Method to Assess Tidal Recruitment by Electrical Impedance Tomography.J Clin Med. 2019 Aug 3;8(8):1161. doi: 10.3390/jcm8081161. J Clin Med. 2019. PMID: 31382559 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of prone positioning on gas exchange according to lung morphology in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Acute Crit Care. 2022 Aug;37(3):322-331. doi: 10.4266/acc.2022.00367. Epub 2022 Jul 29. Acute Crit Care. 2022. PMID: 35977897 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical