The impact of a lung-protective ventilation mode using transpulmonary driving pressure titrated positive end-expiratory pressure on the prognosis of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to assess the impact of a lung-protective ventilation strategy utilizing transpulmonary driving pressure titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on the prognosis [mechanical ventilation duration, hospital stay, 28-day mortality rate and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), survival outcome] of patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).

Methods: A total of 105 ARDS patients were randomly assigned to either the control group (n = 51) or the study group (n = 53). The control group received PEEP titration based on tidal volume [A tidal volume of 6 mL/kg, flow rate of 30-60 L/min, frequency of 16-20 breaths/min, constant flow rate, inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio of 1:1 to 1:1.5, and a plateau pressure ≤ 30-35 cmH₂O. PEEP was adjusted to maintain oxygen saturation (SaO₂) at or above 90%, taking into account blood pressure], while the study group received PEEP titration based on transpulmonary driving pressure (Esophageal pressure was measured as a surrogate for pleural pressure using an esophageal pressure measurement catheter connected to the ventilator. Tidal volume and PEEP were adjusted based on the observed end-inspiratory and end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures, aiming to maintain a transpulmonary driving pressure below 15 cmH₂O during mechanical ventilation. Adjustments were made 2-4 times per day). Statistical analysis and comparison were conducted on lung function indicators [oxygenation index (OI), arterial oxygen tension (PaO2), arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2)] as well as other measures such as heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and central venous pressure in two groups of patients after 48 h of mechanical ventilation. The 28-day mortality rate, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) incidence were compared between the two groups. A 60-day follow-up was performed to record the survival status of the patients.

Results: In the control group, the mean age was (55.55 ± 10.51) years, with 33 females and 18 males. The pre-ICU hospital stay was (32.56 ± 9.89) hours. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was (19.08 ± 4.67), and the mean Murray Acute Lung Injury score was (4.31 ± 0.94). In the study group, the mean age was (57.33 ± 12.21) years, with 29 females and 25 males. The pre-ICU hospital stay was (33.42 ± 10.75) hours. The mean APACHE II score was (20.23 ± 5.00), and the mean Murray Acute Lung Injury score was (4.45 ± 0.88). They presented a homogeneous profile (all P > 0.05). Following intervention, significant improvements were observed in PaO₂ and OI compared to pre-intervention values. The study group exhibited significantly higher PaO₂ and OI compared to the control group, with statistically significant differences (all P < 0.05). After intervention, the study group exhibited a significant increase in PaCO2 (43.69 ± 6.71 mmHg) compared to pre-intervention levels (34.19 ± 5.39 mmHg). The study group's PaCO2 was higher than the control group (42.15 ± 7.25 mmHg), but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in hemodynamic indicators between the two groups post-intervention (all P > 0.05). The study group demonstrated significantly shorter mechanical ventilation duration and hospital stay, while 28-day mortality rate and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) showed no significant differences. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a significantly better survival outcome in the study group at the 60-day follow-up (HR = 0.565, 95% CI: 0.320-0.999).

Conclusion: Lung-protective mechanical ventilation using transpulmonary driving pressure titrated PEEP effectively improves lung function, reduces mechanical ventilation duration and hospital stay, and enhances survival outcomes in patients with ARDS. However, further study is needed to facilitate the wider adoption of this approach.