Should PEEP Titration Be Based on Chest Mechanics in Patients With ARDS?

Abstract

Functional residual capacity (FRC) is essentially the alveolar volume and a determinant of both oxygenation and respiratory system compliance (CRS). ARDS decreases FRC, and sufficient PEEP restores FRC; thus, assessments of PEEP by its impact on oxygenation and CRS are intimately linked. PEEP also can ameliorate or aggravate ventilator-induced lung injury. Therefore, it can be argued that PEEP should be titrated primarily by its impact on CRS The pro position argues that the heterogeneous nature of lung injury and its unique presentation in individual patients results in an uncoupling between oxygenation and CRS Therefore, relying upon oxygenation alone may enhance lung injury and mortality risk, particularly in those with severe ARDS. The con argument is that the preponderance of preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that a relatively narrow range of PEEP is required to manage all but the most severe cases of ARDS. In addition, pathological alterations in chest wall compliance confuse the interpretation of chest mechanics. Moreover, ambiguities and technical limitations in advanced techniques, such as esophageal manometry and pressure-volume curves, add a layer of complexity that renders its broader application in all ARDS patients both impractical and unnecessary. Whether sophisticated monitoring of chest mechanics in severe ARDS might improve outcomes further is open to question and should be studied further. However, it is highly improbable that we will ever discover a PEEP strategy that optimizes all aspects of cardiorespiratory function and chest mechanics for individual patients suffering from ARDS.

Keywords: ARDS; PEEP respiratory system compliance; alveolar recruitment; functional residual capacity; stress index; transpulmonary pressure; ventilator-induced lung injury.