Effect of a low versus intermediate tidal volume strategy on pulmonary complications in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome—a randomized clinical trial

Introduction There is no consensus on whether invasive ventilation should use low tidal volumes (VT) to prevent lung complications in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The purpose of this study is to determine if a low VT strategy is more effective than an intermediate VT strategy in preventing pulmonary complications. Methods A randomized clinical trial was conducted in invasively ventilated patients with a lung injury prediction score (LIPS) of >4 performed in the intensive care units of 10 hospitals in Spain and one in the United States of America (USA) from 3 November 2014 to 30 August 2016. Patients were randomized to invasive ventilation using low VT (≤ 6 mL/kg predicted body weight, PBW) (N = 50) or intermediate VT (> 8 mL/kg PBW) (N = 48). The primary endpoint was the development of ARDS during the first 7 days after the initiation of invasive ventilation. Secondary endpoints included the development of pneumonia and severe atelectases; the length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay; and ICU, hospital, 28– and 90–day mortality. Results In total, 98 patients [67.3% male], with a median age of 65.5 years [interquartile range 55–73], were enrolled until the study was prematurely stopped because of slow recruitment and loss of equipoise caused by recent study reports. On day 7, five (11.9%) patients in the low VT group and four (9.1%) patients in the intermediate VT group had developed ARDS (risk ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.62–2.17]; p = 0.735). The incidence of pneumonia and severe atelectasis was also not different between the two groups. The use of a low VT strategy did neither affect the length of ICU and hospital stay nor mortality rates. Conclusions In patients at risk for ARDS, a low VT strategy did not result in a lower incidence of ARDS than an intermediate VT strategy. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02070666.

[1]  P. Pelosi,et al.  Effect of mechanical power on mortality in invasively ventilated ICU patients without the acute respiratory distress syndrome , 2022, European journal of anaesthesiology.

[2]  H. Fakhim,et al.  CT findings of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis: a systematic review and individual patient data analysis , 2022, Clinical imaging.

[3]  Daryl A Jones,et al.  Effect of Intraoperative Low Tidal Volume vs Conventional Tidal Volume on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Major Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2020, JAMA.

[4]  G. Mistraletti,et al.  Bedside calculation of mechanical power during volume- and pressure-controlled mechanical ventilation , 2020, Critical Care.

[5]  A. Anzueto,et al.  Inter-country variability over time in the mortality of mechanically ventilated patients , 2020, Intensive Care Medicine.

[6]  D. Schoenfeld,et al.  Reappraisal of Ventilator-Free Days in Critical Care Research , 2019, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[7]  A. Serpa Neto,et al.  The tidal volume fix and more…. , 2019, Journal of thoracic disease.

[8]  L. Steuten,et al.  Effect of a Low vs Intermediate Tidal Volume Strategy on Ventilator-Free Days in Intensive Care Unit Patients Without ARDS: A Randomized Clinical Trial , 2018, JAMA.

[9]  Anders Larsson,et al.  Epidemiology, Patterns of Care, and Mortality for Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Intensive Care Units in 50 Countries. , 2016, JAMA.

[10]  R. Wiener,et al.  Epidemiological trends in invasive mechanical ventilation in the United States: A population-based study. , 2015, Journal of critical care.

[11]  D. Talmor,et al.  Lung-Protective Ventilation With Low Tidal Volumes and the Occurrence of Pulmonary Complications in Patients Without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Analysis* , 2015, Critical care medicine.

[12]  Arthur S Slutsky,et al.  Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  D. Talmor,et al.  Association between tidal volume size, duration of ventilation, and sedation needs in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: an individual patient data meta-analysis , 2014, Intensive Care Medicine.

[14]  Arthur S Slutsky,et al.  Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome The Berlin Definition , 2012 .

[15]  C. Schaefer-Prokop,et al.  Bedside Chest Radiography , 2012, Respiratory Care.

[16]  V. Herasevich,et al.  Acute lung injury prediction score: derivation and validation in a population-based sample , 2010, European Respiratory Journal.

[17]  G. Friedman,et al.  Mechanical ventilation with high tidal volume induces inflammation in patients without lung disease , 2010, Critical care.

[18]  J. Korevaar,et al.  Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with conventional tidal volumes for patients without acute lung injury: a preventive randomized controlled trial , 2010, Critical care.

[19]  J. S. St. Sauver,et al.  Ventilator-associated lung injury in patients without acute lung injury at the onset of mechanical ventilation* , 2004, Critical care medicine.

[20]  D. Schoenfeld,et al.  Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  S. Leeder,et al.  A population based study , 1993, The Medical journal of Australia.

[22]  M. Fink,et al.  Are low tidal volumes safe? , 1990, Chest.

[23]  E. Glaser The randomized clinical trial. , 1972, The New England journal of medicine.