[Can lung protective ventilation methods modify outcome?--A critical review].

Abstract

A large body of experimental and clinical work leaves no room for doubt that mechanical ventilation can contribute to the progression of a lung disease or, in the worst case, produce acute pulmonary damage. The pathophysiological processes involved have been described as barotrauma, volutrauma, atelectrauma and biotrauma. In response, a socalled lung-protective ventilation strategy has been proposed, especially for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Such an approach seeks to apply limited airway pressures, small tidal volumes and appropriate levels of positive end-expiratory pressures even if, as a consequence, non-physiological gas exchange values (i.e. elevated PaCO2-levels) need to be tolerated. A recent large prospective randomized trial demonstrated reduced mortality rates using such a strategy. To support lung-protective ventilation in ARDS patients, an array of therapeutic measures has been proposed, including meticulous attention to fluid and transfusion management, prone position, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), inhalation of nitric oxide, implementation of spontaneous breathing, partial liquid ventilation and tracheal gas insufflation. Of these, only prone positioning has become part of routine clinical management, while ECMO is applied in selected cases only. Unfortunately, thus far, none of these measures has passed the litmus test of a randomized controlled trial. Recent large prospective observational studies, however, suggest that only an optimized concert of therapeutic interventions, but not a single measure alone, may improve the outcome of ARDS patients.