Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
EditorialEditorials

How Much PEEP? Do We Need Another Meta-Analysis?

Dean R Hess
Respiratory Care May 2011, 56 (5) 710-713; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.01315
Dean R Hess
Respiratory Care Services Massachusetts General Hospital Harvard Medical School Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]

That ventilator-induced lung injury can result from inappropriate ventilator settings is now well accepted. Tidal volume limitation (6 mL/kg ideal body weight) and inspiratory pressure limitation (plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O) are now standards of care to avoid over-distention injury for patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).1 It is also accepted that cyclical alveolar opening and closing throughout the respiratory cycle is injurious.2 Thus, PEEP sufficient to maintain alveolar recruitment is also important. There should be no argument that no PEEP (zero) causes harm in patients with ALI/ARDS. However, unlike tidal volume and plateau pressure limitation, the level of PEEP that should be used is controversial.

To date, 6 clinical trials have assessed the application of lower versus higher levels of PEEP in patients with ALI/ARDS (Table 1).3–8 Of these, only two have reported a significant reduction in mortality with the use of higher levels of PEEP.3,7 In both of these studies, only patients with ARDS were enrolled and the level of PEEP was determined from the respiratory system pressure-volume curve. However, 2 interventions were applied in both of these studies. That is, a higher level of PEEP was combined with a lower tidal volume. Therefore, it is unknown whether the mortality benefit was related to the higher PEEP level, lower tidal volume, or combined effect of the 2 interventions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Studies That Have Compared Higher Versus Lower Levels of PEEP In Patients With Acute Lung Injury and the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

There have been 3 clinical trials in which tidal volume was held constant at 6 mL/kg ideal body weight, but in which patients were randomly assigned to receive either a higher level of PEEP or a lower level of PEEP.4–6 Each of these studies enrolled patients with both ALI and ARDS. In the groups of patients receiving higher levels of PEEP, there were benefits such as higher PaO2/FIO2, higher respiratory-system compliance, less frequent use of rescue therapies for refractory hypoxemia, and a greater number of ventilator-free days. But, perhaps disappointing for many, there was no significant reduction in mortality for patients receiving higher PEEP. A more recent study used esophageal pressure measurements to set PEEP according to transpulmonary pressure. Although this resulted in a higher PaO2/FIO2, compared to patients receiving a more conservative level of PEEP, the trial was not designed to demonstrate a mortality benefit.8

Within the critical care community there has been intense debate surrounding the likely reasons for the negative results of the clinical trials comparing PEEP levels. Perhaps PEEP was applied using the wrong strategies. Perhaps the groups receiving higher and lower PEEP were contaminated, in that each contained patients who received benefit and harm—thus no difference when the groups were compared against one another (selection bias). Or, perhaps each study, although relatively large, was underpowered to detect a small, but clinically important, difference.

The value of a meta-analysis is that, by pooling data from several studies, statistical power is improved. Thus, results from smaller negative studies might prove positive when combined in a meta-analysis. In this issue of Respiratory Care is reported a meta-analysis of studies evaluating higher versus lower levels of PEEP in patients with ALI/ARDS.9 But the meta-analysis by Dasenbrook is not the first, and a fair question might be, do we need another meta-analysis on this subject? There have been 4 previous meta-analyses published on the topic of higher versus lower PEEP in patients with ALI/ARDS (Table 2).10–13 But each of these used slightly different methodology than Dasenbrook and none of the others include the paper by Talmor.8 So publishing the meta-analysis by Dasenbrook is easy to defend.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Meta-Analyses of Studies That Have Compared Higher Versus Lower PEEP

If alveolar recruitment potential is low, an increase in PEEP will have a marginal effect on shunt and PaO2, and it may contribute to over-distention of already open alveoli. This results in decreased respiratory-system compliance, increased dead space, and redistribution of pulmonary blood flow to unventilated alveoli. However, when the potential for recruitment is high, the benefit of higher levels of PEEP may outweigh the potential for harm due to over-distention.14 When the PaO2/FIO2 is lower (ARDS rather than ALI), the potential for recruitment may be greater15 and higher PEEP may lead to lower mortality.10 The potential for recruitment may also be greater when chest wall compliance is reduced.8,16 Alveolar recruitment can be identified in an individual patient by a trial of increased PEEP. Alveolar recruitment has likely occurred if an increase in PEEP results in an increase in PaO2, a decrease in PaCO2, and improved respiratory-system compliance.2,15

The best technique to select PEEP is unclear. There is heterogeneity in each of the meta-analyses, because each primary study used a different method to select PEEP. Indeed, a variety of techniques for PEEP selection have been described (Table 3) and it is unclear whether any one is superior to the others. We published 2 case reports recently, in the same issue of Respiratory Care, in which one described the use of esophageal manometry to set PEEP19 and the other used pressure-volume curves to set PEEP.20 Some have suggested a decremental, rather than an incremental, PEEP trial.21,22 Using this approach, PEEP is set ≥ 20 cm H2O and then decreased to identify the level that produces the best compliance. However, a recent study was unable to show differences in patient outcomes when setting PEEP by a table was compared to a method using recruitment maneuvers and decremental PEEP.23

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3.

Methods for Selecting PEEP

Use of higher levels of PEEP, when compared to use of moderate levels of PEEP, does not lead to lower mortality in groups of unselected patients with ALI/ARDS. It is becoming increasingly recognized that different PEEP strategies may be needed for different types of ARDS—for example, when the lungs are highly recruitable versus poorly recruitable. Unfortunately, given the complexity of conducting clinical trials in patients with ALI/ARDS, it is unlikely that high-level studies of higher versus lower levels of PEEP will be conducted in patients selected based on alveolar recruitment potential.

So where does this leave us at the bedside? First, PEEP is good for patients with ALI/ARDS. The debate is not whether PEEP should be used, but rather how much PEEP should be used. Second, the available evidence suggests that modest levels of PEEP may be more appropriate for ALI (PaO2/FIO2 > 200 mm Hg), whereas higher levels of PEEP should be used for ARDS (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 200 mm Hg). Higher levels of PEEP should be reserved for patients in whom alveolar recruitment can be demonstrated. Increasing PEEP while driving up the plateau pressure to harmful levels makes no sense. Finally, appropriately powered randomized controlled studies are needed to determine whether there is a best method to set PEEP.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Dean R Hess PhD RRT FAARC, Respiratory Care, Ellison 401, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston MA 02114. E-mail: dhess{at}partners.org.
  • Dr Hess has disclosed relationships with Philips Respironics, Pari, and Covidien.

  • See the Original Study on Page 568

  • Copyright © 2011 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. 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 2000;342(18):1301–1308.
  2. 2.
    1. Ramnath VR,
    2. Hess DR,
    3. Thompson BT
    . Conventional mechanical ventilation in acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Clin Chest Med 2006;27(4):601–613.
  3. 3.
    1. Amato MB,
    2. Barbas CS,
    3. Medeiros DM,
    4. Magaldi RB,
    5. Schettino GP,
    6. Lorenzi-Filho G,
    7. et al
    . Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 1998;338(6):347–354.
  4. 4.
    1. Brower RG,
    2. Lanken PN,
    3. MacIntyre N,
    4. Matthay MA,
    5. Morris A,
    6. Ancukiewicz M,
    7. et al
    . Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressures in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2004;351(4):327–336.
  5. 5.
    1. Meade MO,
    2. Cook DJ,
    3. Guyatt GH,
    4. Slutsky AS,
    5. Arabi YM,
    6. Cooper DJ,
    7. et al
    . Ventilation strategy using low tidal volumes, recruitment maneuvers, and high positive end-expiratory pressure for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008;299(6):637–645.
  6. 6.
    1. Mercat A,
    2. Richard JC,
    3. Vielle B,
    4. Jaber S,
    5. Osman D,
    6. Diehl JL,
    7. et al
    . Positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008;299(6):646–655.
  7. 7.
    1. Villar J,
    2. Kacmarek RM,
    3. Perez-Mendez L,
    4. Aguirre-Jaime A
    . A high positive end-expiratory pressure, low tidal volume ventilatory strategy improves outcome in persistent acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2006;34(5):1311–1318.
  8. 8.
    1. Talmor D,
    2. Sarge T,
    3. Malhotra A,
    4. O'Donnell CR,
    5. Ritz R,
    6. Lisbon A,
    7. et al
    . Mechanical ventilation guided by esophageal pressure in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med 2008;359(20):2095–2104.
  9. 9.
    1. Dasenbrook EC,
    2. Needham DM,
    3. Brower RG,
    4. Fan E
    . Higher PEEP in patients with acute lung injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Care 2011;56(5):568–575.
  10. 10.
    1. Briel M,
    2. Meade M,
    3. Mercat A,
    4. Brower RG,
    5. Talmor D,
    6. Walter SD,
    7. et al
    . Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2010;303(9):865–873.
  11. 11.
    1. Oba Y,
    2. Thameem DM,
    3. Zaza T
    . High levels of PEEP may improve survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis. Respir Med 2009;103(8):1174–1181.
  12. 12.
    1. Phoenix SI,
    2. Paravastu S,
    3. Columb M,
    4. Vincent JL,
    5. Nirmalan M
    . Does a higher positive end expiratory pressure decrease mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesthesiology 2009;110(5):1098–1105.
  13. 13.
    1. Putensen C,
    2. Theuerkauf N,
    3. Zinserling J,
    4. Wrigge H,
    5. Pelosi P
    . Meta-analysis: ventilation strategies and outcomes of the acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute lung injury. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(8):566–576.
  14. 14.
    1. Caironi P,
    2. Cressoni M,
    3. Chiumello D,
    4. Ranieri M,
    5. Quintel M,
    6. Russo SG,
    7. et al
    . Lung opening and closing during ventilation of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010;181(6):578–586.
  15. 15.
    1. Gattinoni L,
    2. Caironi P,
    3. Cressoni M,
    4. Chiumello D,
    5. Ranieri VM,
    6. Quintel M,
    7. et al
    . Lung recruitment in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2006;354(17):1775–1786.
  16. 16.
    1. Gattinoni L,
    2. Pelosi P,
    3. Suter PM,
    4. Pedoto A,
    5. Vercesi P,
    6. Lissoni A
    . Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by pulmonary and extrapulmonary disease. Different syndromes? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;158(1):3–11.
  17. 17.
    1. Suter PM,
    2. Fairley B,
    3. Isenberg MD
    . Optimum end-expiratory airway pressure in patients with acute pulmonary failure. N Engl J Med 1975;292(6):284–289.
  18. 18.
    1. Grasso S,
    2. Stripoli T,
    3. De Michele M,
    4. Bruno F,
    5. Moschetta M,
    6. Angelelli G,
    7. et al
    . ARDSnet ventilatory protocol and alveolar hyperinflation: role of positive end-expiratory pressure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;176(8):761–767.
  19. 19.
    1. Piraino T,
    2. Cook DJ
    . Optimal PEEP guided by esophageal balloon manometry. Respir Care 2011;56(4):510–513.
  20. 20.
    1. Grooms DA,
    2. Sibole SH,
    3. Tomlinson JR,
    4. Marik PE,
    5. Chatburn RL
    . Customization of an open-lung ventilation strategy to treat a case of life-threatening acute respiratory distress syndrome. Respir Care 2011;56(4):514–519.
  21. 21.
    1. Girgis K,
    2. Hamed H,
    3. Khater Y,
    4. Kacmarek RM
    . A decremental PEEP trial identifies the PEEP level that maintains oxygenation after lung recruitment. Respir Care 2006;51(10):1132–1139.
  22. 22.
    1. Hickling KG
    . Best compliance during a decremental, but not incremental, positive end-expiratory pressure trial is related to open-lung positive end-expiratory pressure: a mathematical model of acute respiratory distress syndrome lungs. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163(1):69–78.
  23. 23.
    1. Huh JW,
    2. Jung H,
    3. Vhoi HS,
    4. Hong S,
    5. Lim C,
    6. Koh Y
    . Efficacy of positive end-expiratory pressure titration after the alveolar recruitment manoeuvre in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Critical Care 2009, 13:R22.

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire