Abstract
High tidal volumes have historically been recommended for mechanically ventilated patients during general anesthesia. High tidal volumes have been shown to increase morbidity and mortality in patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Barriers exist in implementing a tidal volume reduction strategy related to the inherent difficulty in changing one's practice patterns, to the current need to individualize low tidal volume settings only for a specific subgroup of mechanically ventilated patients (i.e., ARDS patients), the difficulty in determining the predicated body weight (requiring the patient's height and a complex formula). Consequently, a protective ventilation strategy is often under-utilized as a therapeutic option, even in ARDS. Recent data supports the generalization of this strategy prophylactically to almost all mechanically ventilated patients beginning immediately following intubation. Using tools to rapidly and reliably determine the predicted body weight (PBW), as well as the use of automated modes of ventilation are some of the potential solutions to facilitate the practice of protective ventilation and to finally ventilate our patients’ lungs in a more gentle fashion to help prevent ARDS.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The use of high tidal volume (VT), which we define as a VT >10 ml/kg of PBW, has been heavily influenced by the landmark paper by Bendixen et al. [1] in 1963, demonstrating the promotion of atelectasis in anesthetized patients when low tidal volumes were used as compared with higher tidal volumes. Subsequently, the use of high VT has been promoted to prevent atelectasis in anesthetized patients and by extension has influenced all mechanically ventilated patients, even in the case of ARDS [2–4]. Ventilator-induced lung injury related to high tidal volumes was first described in animals in the 1970s [5–7] and later confirmed in clinical studies [8, 9]. Lung protective ventilation with low tidal volumes is frequently considered the standard of care for patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [10–12]. In ARDS, there is a breakdown of normal lung architecture, loss of functioning lung units and the development of high permeability pulmonary edema, all of which result in clinically stiff, non-compliant and heterogeneous lungs [13]. High VTs resulting in high alveolar pressures in this setting can promote a wide array of local and systemic adverse effects, known as ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) [7]. Mechanistically, these pathophysiologic changes occur from the direct effect of high pressure on the lung, barotrauma, from the damage caused by lung overdistension, volutrauma, from the shear stress of repetitive opening and closing of alveoli, atelectotrauma, and from the generation of cytokines and an inflammatory cascade, resulting in biotrauma [13]. Protective ventilation refers to the use in ARDS patients of low VT, often in the range of 4–8 ml/kg of PBW. Currently, this strategy is only recommended in a small subset of mechanically ventilated patients; those who have ARDS [10–12]. However, there is mounting evidence that high tidal volumes can be injurious to the lungs and other organ in patients without ARDS. Data from Gajic et al. have suggested that ARDS can be a hospital-acquired event akin to hospital-acquired infections, and high tidal volume use in mechanically ventilated patients was among the strongest risk factors for the development of hospital-acquired ARDS [14–16]. We will review the current literature concerning the use of prophylactic protective ventilation in patients without ARDS criterion and highlight important challenges that limit the successful implementation of protective ventilation in clinical practice. This article focuses on prevention of ARDS rather than on its treatment as the vast majority of ventilated patients are not initially affected by ARDS [14, 17, 18].
A brief history of protective ventilation
In 1963, a seminal paper by Bendixen [1] in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated that the use of higher VTs during anesthesia (18 patients undergoing laparotomy) resulted in less acidosis and improved oxygenation compared to lower VTs. These findings were important at this time as both hypoxemia and acidosis were of concern for anesthesiologists given the limited capacity to monitor patients’ blood gases in this era. This important paper also popularized the concept of atelectasis in mechanically ventilated patients. Nearly 50 years later, authoritative anesthesiology textbooks continued to recommend the use of VTs between 10–15 ml/kg for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in order to avoid atelectasis and hypoxia [3, 4], and many studies have been performed in patients with ARDS with a variety of high VTs ranging from 10 to 24 ml/kg [2, 19]. Initial animal data demonstrated that high tidal volume could be injurious to the lung, and pioneers in the field proposed strategies of “permissive hypercapnia” based on tidal volume reductions [20]. However, it was many years later that two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in humans demonstrated improved outcomes with the use of lower VTs [8, 9]. Intense debate followed with a meta-analysis by Eichaker that also included three “negative” RCTs and suggested that the primary conclusion should be that high tidal volumes (12 ml/kg of PBW) and corresponding plateau pressures have deleterious side effects [21–24]. To be more precise, the transmitted pressure to the alveoli or transpulmonary pressure, calculated as the difference between the alveolar and pleural pressures, is what causes alveolar trauma [25]. Due to the difficulty in calculating transpulmonary pressures, one should monitor and maintain the plateau pressure below 30 cmH2O. Currently most authors recommend the use of protective ventilation with 6–8 ml/kg of PBW in ARDS patients [10–12]. However, in less ill patients with high lung compliance, tidal volume reduction may not be beneficial [26]. The recommendation for prophylactic protective ventilation using lower tidal volumes in patients without ARDS is currently less established.
Protective ventilation in patients without lung injury
Once the lung has been “primed” by an initial insult such as pneumonia, sepsis, non-cardiogenic shock, major trauma, multiple transfusions or cardiopulmonary bypass [27], injurious mechanical ventilation with high tidal volumes leading to high alveolar and transpulmonary pressures can then amplify a pulmonary and systemic inflammatory response leading to VILI and “iatrogenic ARDS” (Fig. 1); [14–16]. This process is usually labeled as the “multiple-hit theory” of ARDS [28, 29]. Many patients admitted in ICUs have at least one of these risk factors, and it was shown that very high tidal volumes, up to 18 ml/kg of PBW, are still delivered to ICU patients [15, 30]. Most of the studies comparing “protective ventilation” with low VT and high PEEP to “conventional ventilation” with high VT and low PEEP in non-ARDS patients demonstrate a beneficial impact of the protective ventilation strategy on inflammation, oxygenation or clinical outcome data (Tables 1, 2); [15, 16, 30–50]. However, it must be highlighted that most of the currently available studies have small sample sizes and report mainly on inflammatory biomarkers, and few studies have data on meaningful patient outcomes. Patients who appear to benefit most from prophylactic protective ventilation in these studies are those who undergo high-risk surgery (e.g., cardiac bypass, pneumonectomy) or who are critically ill and require ICU admission [15, 16, 30, 38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 48]. These patients may therefore benefit from a strategy of tidal volume reduction from the time of initiation of mechanical ventilation to reduce the risk of developing ARDS. Large randomized controlled studies are ongoing to assess the impact of protective ventilation in other populations [51].
Applying prophylactic protective ventilation at the initiation of mechanical ventilation: practical issues
When?
It has been previously shown that initial ventilator settings are often unchanged following initial intubation [15, 30]; meanwhile pulmonary damage can happen after only a few hours of mechanical ventilation [38]. Moreover, ARDS is frequently underrecognized by clinicians [52, 53] or recognized with delay. In a recent study, it was shown that patients with mild ARDS were exposed to injurious ventilation from 40.6 ± 74.6 h before to 26.9 ± 77.3 h after implementation of an electronic alert system [54]. Prophylactic protective ventilation should therefore be implemented as soon as patients are intubated. Using this strategy by default for all mechanically ventilated patients earlier rather than to a limited population of ARDS patients later in their course of disease (after recognition of the ARDS criterion) is likely to increase the benefits of tidal volume reduction. The application of lower tidal volume is easily feasible during initial controlled ventilation, which may last a few hours or up to several days in more severely ill patients. Of note, there are no data to support delaying the switch from controlled to assisted ventilation in patients without ARDS in order to control the VT. Indeed, spontaneous ventilation should be promoted early in most patients even if VT control is not easily feasible with assisted ventilation, which is often the case when critically ill patients have a high respiratory drive [55]. This remains a difficult and unresolved issue.
How?
Tidal volume
In patients without ARDS, current evidence suggests that a VT between 6–8 ml/kg PBW in patients at risk of ARDS could be used safely and with potential benefits, and in patients without risk factors, a VT ≤10 ml/kg PBW may be appropriate [56]. It must be emphasized that the PBW and not the actual body weight (ABW) should be used to calculate tidal volume (Fig. 2). The use of ABW may overestimate the required VT especially in patients with a BMI >25, and this has been associated with increased organ failure [30]. This is of growing importance considering the current epidemic of obesity. When the first RCTs were initiated in the 1980s, 10 % of the US population had a BMI over 30. This has now increased to almost 40 % of the population in the US and also affects a large proportion of developing countries as well [57, 58].
PEEP and FiO2
What Bendixen described in 1963 is still true: the utilization of lower tidal volumes can result in atelectasis, hypoxemia and acidosis. However, since Bendixen’s paper, several physiological reports have shown that the use of PEEP could prevent atelectasis [59]. The effect of PEEP was particularly well demonstrated in obese patients [60], and moderate levels of PEEP should be applied with the use of lower VTs to avoid atelectasis. Although the optimal level of PEEP is still controversial, the use of zero PEEP (ZEEP) has been associated with worse outcomes, including increased hypoxemia, ventilator-associated pneumonia as well as hospital mortality [17, 61]. The optimal level of PEEP in prophylactic protective ventilation remains unclear. In patients without ARDS, PEEP levels between 5 and 12 cmH2O have been used in conjunction with low tidal volume and usually ≥8 cmH2O (Tables 1, 2). Therefore, to avoid atelectasis, we suggest starting with a PEEP level of 8 cmH2O (or more in obese patients because of increased pleural pressures) and titrating depending on the FiO2- and the hemodynamic status of the patient. New tools estimating end expiratory lung volumes could be helpful to titrate PEEP in this situation [62].
In addition, a reduction in the levels of FiO2 should be undertaken as levels above 60 % can cause denitrogenation-atelectasis [63, 64]. It is well accepted that SpO2 targets must be reduced in the case of ARDS patients to 88–92 % [11, 65], and this also should also be considered in other patient populations. SpO2 should be kept above 92 % to maintain a SaO2 above 90 % [65]. However, while hyperoxia toxicity is now well established, there is no upper limit that is recommended [66–68], and with the exception of abdominal surgeries where hyperoxia may be beneficial in the reduction of surgical site infections, there is no evidence suggesting clinical benefits for maintaining a SpO2 above 96 % [69].
When lower VTs are used, the respiratory rate needs to be increased to avoid respiratory acidosis and metabolic complications such as acute hyperkalemia, especially when patients have high minute ventilation before intubation. A starting respiratory rate of 20 or more seems reasonable to avoid severe acidosis following initial intubation with tidal volumes below 10 ml/kg of PBW. In order to maintain adequate minute ventilation, it may be required to aggressively increase the respiratory rate, sometimes above 30 breaths/min. This may lead to the development of dynamic hyperinflation and auto-PEEP, which can have significant negative respiratory and hemodynamic consequences [70]. Due to short time constants and low lung compliance in patients with ARDS, this risk is usually limited below 30 breaths/minute [71], but in patients with normal lung compliance and longer time constants, the possibility of auto-PEEP may incur at lower respiratory rates. Thus, the ability to recognize patients at risk for auto-PEEP as well as to accurately recognize the presence of dynamic hyperinflation from abnormal ventilator waveforms is fundamental to safe clinical practice [70]. In addition, the humidification system used with the ventilator is particularly important and can be a significant contributor to increased respiratory acidosis if low tidal volumes and high respiratory rates are used. To reduce the severity of hypercapnia, reduction of dead space can be easily accomplished by using a heated humidifier instead of a heat and moisture exchanger [72]; (Table 3).
Overcoming barriers to implement strategies of tidal volume reduction
It takes many years to implement research findings into clinical practice, a process referred to as knowledge translation [73]. Indeed, despite evidence showing that a reduced VT strategy is associated with improved outcomes in ARDS patients, clinicians still routinely use VTs greater than 10 ml/kg [74, 75]. Eight years following the original landmark ARDS Network paper, Umoh et al. [76] still found that only 46 % of eligible patients received low VT ventilation in a multicenter study. Studies showing the most impressive implementation of protective ventilation were carried out in centers participating in mechanical ventilation networks or used active educational tools to improve care [77, 78], but this does not reflect real-life practice, where protective ventilation in ARDS patients is often less successfully applied [79]. Even in ARDS network centers participating in the ALVEOLI trial, tidal volume was not reduced to 6, but to 8 ml/kg PBW at baseline [80]. The habit of using large VTs >10 ml/kg for several decades and the known difficulty in recognizing patients who meet criteria for ARDS are some of the reasons for the low compliance with current low tidal volume guidelines [52, 53]. The generalization of protective ventilation to all “at risk” patients as soon as they are intubated would likely facilitate the implementation of protective ventilation and improve overall compliance.
Despite the attempt to use protective ventilation in everyday practice, the use of actual instead of predicted body weight (PBW) in the calculation of VT is a frequent error, leading to over-treatment with higher VTs (Fig. 2); [30, 81]. Interestingly, in a meta-analysis by Eichaker et al., the absence of a uniform method to express the VT was discussed; four different methods were used out of the five RCTs: PBW [8, 24], ideal body weight [23], dry weight [22] and ABW [9]. PBW in men is calculated as 50 (45.5 in women) +0.91 (height −152.4 cm) [8]. In many instances, the height of the patient is not immediately known. This is especially true outside of the surgical ICU (i.e., pre-hospital transport, emergency department, post-anesthesia recovery room or medical ICU) because surgical ICUs are more likely to have height and weight measurements because of the operative record. In addition, visual estimation of patient height and PBW is known to be inaccurate, and shorter female patients tend to be disproportionally affected [82, 83]. The ability to rapidly calculate PBW at the bedside is important. Novel devices such as applications on smartphones (e.g., iAnthropometer ICU), where one can quickly calculate the patients’ height from the patient’s lower leg length based on validated formulas and automatically derive the PBW and subsequent VTs are promising tools [84, 85]. This application was more accurate at calculating patient height than both the method of visual estimation and supine in-bed tape measurement [85].
Automated mechanical ventilation systems are another way to help implement protective ventilation. The new fully automated ventilator (IntelliVentTM, Hamilton Medical, Bonaduz, Switzerland) was recently evaluated [86]. VTs were automatically reduced below 10 ml/kg of PBW after only a few minutes of mechanical ventilation, and the respiratory rate was automatically increased to maintain stable minute ventilation. These closed loop systems will likely become more widely available given the results of promising initial clinical evaluations and the expected rise in the number of mechanically ventilated patients in the future [87].
Conclusion
To recommend prophylactic protective ventilation to all intubated patients may not be justified; however, more liberal use of this treatment could safely be promoted following initial intubation and mechanical ventilation. In line with other authors, we recommend a VT of 6–8 ml/kg PBW in patients with risk factors for the development of lung injury [56], such as multiple transfusions, trauma, sepsis, or high-risk surgery. In other mechanically ventilated patients, we recommend the use of VTs below 10 ml/kg PBW from the initiation of mechanical ventilation. As was shown almost 50 years ago, small tidal volumes may induce derecruitment and atelectasis. The alternative to the use of high tidal volumes to avoid this complication is the use of moderate levels of PEEP. Compared to patients with ARDS who often have a significant amount of recruitable lung units and higher oxygenation requirements, the amount of PEEP required for patients without ARDS is likely to be less, and based on limited current evidence, we suggest an initial setting of 8 cmH2O, which should be titrated based on the individual patient’s oxygenation requirements. Future prospective clinical trials will be required to better define the optimal VT and PEEP in patients in the ICU or operating room who are at risk for ARDS in order to reduce the risk of hospital acquired ARDS. Considering the proven safety of this approach, the physiologic rationale and the current evidence, this prophylactic protective ventilation strategy can be recommended for almost all mechanically ventilated patients who do not yet have ARDS and particularly those with risk factors to prevent progressive development of lung injury. Given the high prevalence of risk factors for ARDS and the unpredictability of developing ARDS throughout the course of one’s illness, the implementation of a ventilation strategy that incorporates tidal volume reduction based on PBW and moderately high PEEP in the majority of intubated ICU patients and at initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation is reasonable [88]. This strategy has potential benefits, and there is little evidence of associated harm. Patients who may not benefit from this strategy are those who are otherwise healthy and are undergoing routine elective surgery.
References
Bendixen HH, Hedley-Whyte J, Laver MB (1963) Impaired oxygenation in surgical patients during general anesthesia with controlled ventilation. A concept of atelectasis. N Engl J Med 269:991–996
Jardin F, Farcot JC, Boisante L, Curien N, Margairaz A, Bourdarias JP (1981) Influence of positive end-expiratory pressure on left ventricular performance. N Engl J Med 304:387–392
Shapiro BA, Peruzzi WT (2000) Respiratory Care. In: Miller RD (ed) Anesthesia. Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia, pp 2403–2443
Wilson WC, Benumof JL (2005) Anesthesia for thoracic surgery. In: Miller RD (ed) Anesthesia. Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia, pp 1847–1939
Webb H, Tierney D (1974) Experimental pulmonary edema due to intermittent positive pressure ventilation with high inflation pressures: protection by positive end-expiratory pressure. Am Rev Respir Dis 110:556–565
Dreyfuss D, Basset G, Soler P, Saumon G (1985) Intermittent positive-pressure hyperventilation with high inflation pressures produces pulmonary microvascular injury in rats. Am Rev Respir Dis 132:880–884
Dreyfuss D, Saumon G (1998) Ventilator-induced lung injury: lessons from experimental studies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 157:294–323
The acute respiratory distress syndrome network (2000) Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 342(18):1301–1308
Amato MB, Barbas CS, Medeiros DM, Magaldi RB, Schettino GP, Lorenzi-Filho G, Kairalla RA, Deheinzelin D, Munoz C, Oliveira R, Takagaki TY, Carvalho CR (1998) Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 338:347–354
Putensen C, Theuerkauf N, Zinserling J, Wrigge H, Pelosi P (2009) Meta-analysis: ventilation strategies and outcomes of the acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute lung injury. Ann Intern Med 151:566–576
Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, Reinhart K, Angus DC, Brun-Buisson C, Beale R, Calandra T, Dhainaut JF, Gerlach H, Harvey M, Marini JJ, Marshall J, Ranieri M, Ramsay G, Sevransky J, Thompson BT, Townsend S, Vender JS, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL (2008) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Crit Care Med 36:296–327
Girard TD, Bernard GR (2007) Mechanical ventilation in ARDS: a state-of-the-art review. Chest 131:921–929
Ware LB, Matthay MA (2000) The acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 342:1334–1349
Villar J, Slutsky AS (2010) Is acute respiratory distress syndrome an iatrogenic disease? Crit Care 14:120
Gajic O, Dara SI, Mendez JL, Adesanya AO, Festic E, Caples SM, Rana R, St Sauver JL, Lymp JF, Afessa B, Hubmayr RD (2004) Ventilator-associated lung injury in patients without acute lung injury at the onset of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 32:1817–1824
Gajic O, Frutos-Vivar F, Esteban A, Hubmayr RD, Anzueto A (2005) Ventilator settings as a risk factor for acute respiratory distress syndrome in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med 31:922–926
Metnitz PG, Metnitz B, Moreno RP, Bauer P, Del Sorbo L, Hoermann C, de Carvalho SA, Ranieri VM (2009) Epidemiology of mechanical ventilation: analysis of the SAPS 3 database. Intensive Care Med 35:816–825
Esteban A, Anzueto A, Frutos F, Alia I, Brochard L, Stewart TE, Benito S, Epstein SK, Apezteguia C, Nightingale P, Arroliga AC, Tobin MJ (2002) Characteristics and outcomes in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a 28-day international study. JAMA 287:345–355
Mathru M, Rao TL, Venus B (1983) Ventilator-induced barotrauma in controlled mechanical ventilation versus intermittent mandatory ventilation. Crit Care Med 11:359–361
Hickling KG, Henderson SJ, Jackson R (1990) Low mortality associated with low volume pressure limited ventilation with permissive hypercapnia in severe adult respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 16:372–377
Eichacker PQ, Gerstenberger EP, Banks SM, Cui X, Natanson C (2002) Meta-analysis of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome trials testing low tidal volumes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 166:1510–1514
Brochard L, Roudot-Thoraval F, Roupie E, Delclaux C, Chastre J, Fernandez-Mondejar E, Clementi E, Mancebo J, Factor P, Matamis D, Ranieri M, Blanch L, Rodi G, Mentec H, Dreyfuss D, Ferrer M, Brun-Buisson C, Tobin M, Lemaire F (1998) Tidal volume reduction for prevention of ventilator-induced lung injury in acute respiratory distress syndrome. The multicenter trail group on tidal volume reduction in ARDS. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 158:1831–1838
Stewart TE, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Granton JT, Hodder RV, Lapinsky SE, Mazer CD, McLean RF, Rogovein TS, Schouten BD, Todd TR, Slutsky AS (1998) Evaluation of a ventilation strategy to prevent barotrauma in patients at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Pressure- and volume-limited ventilation strategy group. N Engl J Med 338:355–361
Brower RG, Shanholtz CB, Fessler HE, Shade DM, White P Jr, Wiener CM, Teeter JG, Dodd-o JM, Almog Y, Piantadosi S (1999) Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing traditional versus reduced tidal volume ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Crit Care Med 27:1492–1498
Zanella A, Bellani G, Pesenti A (2010) Airway pressure and flow monitoring. Curr Opin Crit Care 16:255–260
Deans KJ, Minneci PC, Cui X, Banks SM, Natanson C, Eichacker PQ (2005) Mechanical ventilation in ARDS: one size does not fit all. Crit Care Med 33:1141–1143
Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, Ferguson ND, Caldwell E, Fan E, Camporota L, Slutsky AS (2012) Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition. JAMA 307:2526–2533
Bouadma L, Schortgen F, Ricard JD, Martet G, Dreyfuss D, Saumon G (2004) Ventilation strategy affects cytokine release after mesenteric ischemia-reperfusion in rats. Crit Care Med 32:1563–1569
Gajic O, Manno EM (2007) Neurogenic pulmonary edema: another multiple-hit model of acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 35:1979–1980
Lellouche F, Dionne S, Simard S, Bussieres J, Dagenais F (2012) High tidal volumes in mechanically ventilated patients increase organ dysfunction after cardiac surgery. Anesthesiology 116:1072–1082
Wrigge H, Zinserling J, Stuber F, von Spiegel T, Hering R, Wetegrove S, Hoeft A, Putensen C (2000) Effects of mechanical ventilation on release of cytokines into systemic circulation in patients with normal pulmonary function. Anesthesiology 93:1413–1417
Chaney MA, Nikolov MP, Blakeman BP, Bakhos M (2000) Protective ventilation attenuates postoperative pulmonary dysfunction in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 14:514–518
Koner O, Celebi S, Balci H, Cetin G, Karaoglu K, Cakar N (2004) Effects of protective and conventional mechanical ventilation on pulmonary function and systemic cytokine release after cardiopulmonary bypass. Intensive Care Med 30:620–626
Wrigge H, Uhlig U, Zinserling J, Behrends-Callsen E, Ottersbach G, Fischer M, Uhlig S, Putensen C (2004) The effects of different ventilatory settings on pulmonary and systemic inflammatory responses during major surgery. Anesth Analg 98:775–781 table of contents
Schilling T, Kozian A, Huth C, Buhling F, Kretzschmar M, Welte T, Hachenberg T (2005) The pulmonary immune effects of mechanical ventilation in patients undergoing thoracic surgery. Anesth Analg 101:957–965
Wrigge H, Uhlig U, Baumgarten G, Menzenbach J, Zinserling J, Ernst M, Dromann D, Welz A, Uhlig S, Putensen C (2005) Mechanical ventilation strategies and inflammatory responses to cardiac surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med 31:1379–1387
Reis Miranda D, Gommers D, Struijs A, Dekker R, Mekel J, Feelders R, Lachmann B, Bogers AJ (2005) Ventilation according to the open lung concept attenuates pulmonary inflammatory response in cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 28:889–895
Zupancich E, Paparella D, Turani F, Munch C, Rossi A, Massaccesi S, Ranieri VM (2005) Mechanical ventilation affects inflammatory mediators in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass for cardiac surgery: a randomized clinical trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 130:378–383
Fernandez-Perez ER, Keegan MT, Brown DR, Hubmayr RD, Gajic O (2006) Intraoperative tidal volume as a risk factor for respiratory failure after pneumonectomy. Anesthesiology 105:14–18
Choi G, Wolthuis EK, Bresser P, Levi M, van der Poll T, Dzoljic M, Vroom MB, Schultz MJ (2006) Mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure prevents alveolar coagulation in patients without lung injury. Anesthesiology 105:689–695
Michelet P, D’Journo XB, Roch A, Doddoli C, Marin V, Papazian L, Decamps I, Bregeon F, Thomas P, Auffray JP (2006) Protective ventilation influences systemic inflammation after esophagectomy: a randomized controlled study. Anesthesiology 105:911–919
Licker M, Diaper J, Villiger Y, Spiliopoulos A, Licker V, Robert J, Tschopp JM (2009) Impact of intraoperative lung-protective interventions in patients undergoing lung cancer surgery. Crit Care 13:R41
Weingarten TN, Whalen FX, Warner DO, Gajic O, Schears GJ, Snyder MR, Schroeder DR, Sprung J (2010) Comparison of two ventilatory strategies in elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth 104:16–22
Yang M, Ahn HJ, Kim K, Kim JA, Yi CA, Kim MJ, Kim HJ (2011) Does a protective ventilation strategy reduce the risk of pulmonary complications after lung cancer surgery? A randomized controlled trial. Chest 139:530–537
Sundar S, Novack V, Jervis K, Bender SP, Lerner A, Panzica P, Mahmood F, Malhotra A, Talmor D (2011) Influence of low tidal volume ventilation on time to extubation in cardiac surgical patients. Anesthesiology 114:1102–1110
Lee PC, Helsmoortel CM, Cohn SM, Fink MP (1990) Are low tidal volumes safe? Chest 97:430–434
Mascia L, Pasero D, Slutsky AS, Arguis MJ, Berardino M, Grasso S, Munari M, Boifava S, Cornara G, Della Corte F, Vivaldi N, Malacarne P, Del Gaudio P, Livigni S, Zavala E, Filippini C, Martin EL, Donadio PP, Mastromauro I, Ranieri VM (2010) Effect of a lung protective strategy for organ donors on eligibility and availability of lungs for transplantation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 304:2620–2627
Determann RM, Royakkers A, Wolthuis EK, Vlaar AP, Choi G, Paulus F, Hofstra JJ, de Graaff MJ, Korevaar JC, Schultz MJ (2010) Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with conventional tidal volumes for patients without acute lung injury: a preventive randomized controlled trial. Crit Care 14:R1
Pinheiro de Oliveira R, Hetzel MP, dos Anjos Silva M, Dallegrave D, Friedman G (2010) Mechanical ventilation with high tidal volume induces inflammation in patients without lung disease. Crit Care 14:R39
Mascia L, Zavala E, Bosma K, Pasero D, Decaroli D, Andrews P, Isnardi D, Davi A, Arguis MJ, Berardino M, Ducati A (2007) High tidal volume is associated with the development of acute lung injury after severe brain injury: an international observational study. Crit Care Med 35:1815–1820
Hemmes SN, Severgnini P, Jaber S, Canet J, Wrigge H, Hiesmayr M, Tschernko EM, Hollmann MW, Binnekade JM, Hedenstierna G, Putensen C, de Abreu MG, Pelosi P, Schultz MJ (2011) Rationale and study design of PROVHILO - a worldwide multicenter randomized controlled trial on protective ventilation during general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery. Trials 12:111
Ferguson ND, Frutos-Vivar F, Esteban A, Fernandez-Segoviano P, Aramburu JA, Najera L, Stewart TE (2005) Acute respiratory distress syndrome: under recognition by clinicians and diagnostic accuracy of three clinical definitions. Crit Care Med 33:2228–2234
Herasevich V, Yilmaz M, Khan H, Hubmayr RD, Gajic O (2009) Validation of an electronic surveillance system for acute lung injury. Intensive Care Med 35:1018–1023
Herasevich V, Tsapenko M, Kojicic M, Ahmed A, Kashyap R, Venkata C, Shahjehan K, Thakur SJ, Pickering BW, Zhang J, Hubmayr RD, Gajic O (2011) Limiting ventilator-induced lung injury through individual electronic medical record surveillance. Crit Care Med 39:34–39
Gama de Abreu M, Guldner A, Pelosi P (2012) Spontaneous breathing activity in acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 25:148–155
Schultz MJ, Haitsma JJ, Slutsky AS, Gajic O (2007) What tidal volumes should be used in patients without acute lung injury? Anesthesiology 106:1226–1231
Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Ogden CL (2012) Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999–2010. JAMA 307:491–497
Prentice AM (2006) The emerging epidemic of obesity in developing countries. Int J Epidemiol 35:93–99
Hedenstierna G, Rothen HU (2000) Atelectasis formation during anesthesia: causes and measures to prevent it. J Clin Monit Comput 16:329–335
Pelosi P, Ravagnan I, Giurati G, Panigada M, Bottino N, Tredici S, Eccher G, Gattinoni L (1999) Positive end-expiratory pressure improves respiratory function in obese but not in normal subjects during anesthesia and paralysis. Anesthesiology 91:1221–1231
Manzano F, Fernandez-Mondejar E, Colmenero M, Poyatos ME, Rivera R, Machado J, Catalan I, Artigas A (2008) Positive-end expiratory pressure reduces incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in non-hypoxemic patients. Crit Care Med 36:2225–2231
Dellamonica J, Lerolle N, Sargentini C, Beduneau G, Di Marco F, Mercat A, Richard JC, Diehl JL, Mancebo J, Rouby JJ, Lu Q, Bernardin G, Brochard L (2011) PEEP-induced changes in lung volume in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Two methods to estimate alveolar recruitment. Intensive Care Med 37:1595–1604
Dery R, Pelletier J, Jacques A, Clavet M, Houde J (1965) Alveolar collapse induced by denitrogenation. Can Anaesth Soc J 12:531–557
Aboab J, Jonson B, Kouatchet A, Taille S, Niklason L, Brochard L (2006) Effect of inspired oxygen fraction on alveolar derecruitment in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 32:1979–1986
Jubran A (2004) Pulse oximetry. Intensive Care Med 30:2017–2020
Altemeier WA, Sinclair SE (2007) Hyperoxia in the intensive care unit: why more is not always better. Curr Opin Crit Care 13:73–78
Farquhar H, Weatherall M, Wijesinghe M, Perrin K, Ranchord A, Simmonds M, Beasley R (2009) Systematic review of studies of the effect of hyperoxia on coronary blood flow. Am Heart J 158:371–377
Floyd TF, Ratcliffe SJ, Detre JA, Woo YJ, Acker MA, Bavaria JE, Resh BF, Pochettino AA, Eckenhoff RA (2007) Integrity of the cerebral blood-flow response to hyperoxia after cardiopulmonary bypass. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 21:212–217
Greif R, Akca O, Horn EP, Kurz A, Sessler DI (2000) Supplemental perioperative oxygen to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 342:161–167
Brochard L (2002) Intrinsic (or auto-) PEEP during controlled mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 28:1376–1378
Richard JC, Brochard L, Breton L, Aboab J, Vandelet P, Tamion F, Maggiore SM, Mercat A, Bonmarchand G (2002) Influence of respiratory rate on gas trapping during low volume ventilation of patients with acute lung injury. Intensive Care Med 28:1078–1083
Prat G, Renault A, Tonnelier JM, Goetghebeur D, Oger E, Boles JM, L’Her E (2003) Influence of the humidification device during acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 29:2211–2215
Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N (2006) Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 26:13–24
Weinert CR, Gross CR, Marinelli WA (2003) Impact of randomized trial results on acute lung injury ventilator therapy in teaching hospitals. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 167:1304–1309
Young MP, Manning HL, Wilson DL, Mette SA, Riker RR, Leiter JC, Liu SK, Bates JT, Parsons PE (2004) Ventilation of patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: has new evidence changed clinical practice? Crit Care Med 32:1260–1265
Umoh NJ, Fan E, Mendez-Tellez PA, Sevransky JE, Dennison CR, Shanholtz C, Pronovost PJ, Needham DM (2008) Patient and intensive care unit organizational factors associated with low tidal volume ventilation in acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 36:1463–1468
Checkley W, Brower R, Korpak A, Thompson BT (2008) Effects of a clinical trial on mechanical ventilation practices in patients with acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 177:1215–1222
Wolthuis EK, Korevaar JC, Spronk P, Kuiper MA, Dzoljic M, Vroom MB, Schultz MJ (2005) Feedback and education improve physician compliance in use of lung-protective mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 31:540–546
Esteban A, Ferguson ND, Meade MO, Frutos-Vivar F, Apezteguia C, Brochard L, Raymondos K, Nin N, Hurtado J, Tomicic V, Gonzalez M, Elizalde J, Nightingale P, Abroug F, Pelosi P, Arabi Y, Moreno R, Jibaja M, D’Empaire G, Sandi F, Matamis D, Montanez AM, Anzueto A (2008) Evolution of mechanical ventilation in response to clinical research. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 177:170–177
Brower RG, Lanken PN, MacIntyre N, Matthay MA, Morris A, Ancukiewicz M, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT (2004) Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressures in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 351:327–336
Kam EP, Eslick GD, James A, Benson JP (2004) Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and low tidal volume ventilation: the debate about weight. Intensive Care Med 30:1502
Han S, Martin GS, Maloney JP, Shanholtz C, Barnes KC, Murray S, Sevransky JE (2011) Short women with severe sepsis-related acute lung injury receive lung protective ventilation less frequently: an observational cohort study. Crit Care 15:R262
Maskin LP, Attie S, Setten M, Rodriguez PO, Bonelli I, Stryjewski ME, Valentini R (2010) Accuracy of weight and height estimation in an intensive care unit. Anaesth Intensive Care 38:930–934
(2011) iAnthropometer ICU1. http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/ianthropometer-icu-1/id428778012?mt=8
Bojmehrani A, Bouchard P, Bouchard C, L’Her E, Lellouche F (2012) Evaluation of new tool to measure patient’s height during mechanical ventilation: impact on protective ventilation implementation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 185:A1720
Arnal JM, Wysocki M, Novotni D, Demory D, Lopez R, Donati S, Granier I, Corno G, Durand-Gasselin J (2012) Safety and efficacy of a fully closed-loop control ventilation [IntelliVent-ASV(R)] in sedated ICU patients with acute respiratory failure: a prospective randomized crossover study. Intensive Care Med 38:781–787
Lellouche F, Bojmehrani A, Burns K (2012) Mechanical ventilation with advanced closed-loop systems: automating knowledge transfer and reducing the supply demand. European Respiratory Monography 55:217–228
Hubmayr RD (2011) Point: is low tidal volume mechanical ventilation preferred for all patients on ventilation? Yes. Chest 140:9–11
Lellouche F, Taille S, Lefrancois F, Deye N, Maggiore SM, Jouvet P, Ricard JD, Fumagalli B, Brochard L (2009) Humidification performance of 48 passive airway humidifiers: comparison with manufacturer data. Chest 135:276–286
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lellouche, F., Lipes, J. Prophylactic protective ventilation: lower tidal volumes for all critically ill patients?. Intensive Care Med 39, 6–15 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2728-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2728-4