Pressure and Volume Limited Ventilation for the Ventilatory Management of Patients with Acute Lung Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014623

PLoS One. 2011; 6(1): e14623.

Published online 2011 January 28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014623

PMCID: PMC3030554

Copyright Burns et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Pressure and Volume Limited Ventilation for the Ventilatory Management of Patients with Acute Lung Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Karen E. A. Burns,^1,²^* Neill K. J. Adhikari,^1,³ Arthur S. Slutsky,^1,² Gordon H. Guyatt,⁴ Jesus Villar,^2,^5,⁶ Haibo Zhang,^1,² Qi Zhou,⁴ Deborah J. Cook,⁴ Thomas E. Stewart,¹ and Maureen O. Meade⁴

¹Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

²Keenan Research Centre and Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada

³Department of Critical Care Medicine and Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada

⁴Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

⁵CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain

⁶Research Unit, Hospital Universitario Dr. Negrin, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain

Jeffrey A. Gold, Editor

Oregon Health and Science University, United States of America

* E-mail: burnsk/at/smh.ca

Conceived and designed the experiments: KEAB NKA ASS GG JV HZ DC TS MOM. Performed the experiments: KEAB NKA MOM. Analyzed the data: KEAB ASS GG JV HZ QZ DC TS MOM. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: QZ. Wrote the paper: KEAB NKA ASS GG JV HZ QZ DC TS MOM. Designed the review protocol, conducted the literature searches, screened abstracts and related articles, selected studies meeting inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed study quality, prepared initial and subsequent drafts of the manuscript and integrated comments from other authors into revised and final versions of the manuscript: KEAB. Conducted the literature searches, screened abstracts, participated in protocol design, selected studies meeting inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed study quality, revised and approved the final version the manuscript: NKJA. Provided guidance in drafting the manuscript, aided in interpreting the pooled results, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript: ASS DC TS. Provided methodologic guidance in designing the protocol, drafting the manuscript, facilitated correspondence with authors to clarify study methodology, aided in interpreting the pooled results, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript: GG. Aided in interpreting the pooled results, assisted in preparing the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript: JV. Facilitated translation of foreign language publications and correspondence with authors to clarify study methodology, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript: HZ. Provided statistical guidance for the meta-analysis, conducted the analyses aided in interpreting the pooled results, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript: QZ. Designed the review protocol, screened abstracts and related articles, adjudicated disagreements regarding study selection and methodologic quality, provided methodologic guidance in drafting the manuscript, prepared the evidence table, integrated comments from other authors into revised versions of the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript: MOM.

Received April 30, 2010; Accepted December 14, 2010.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

Background

Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are life threatening clinical conditions seen in critically ill patients with diverse underlying illnesses. Lung injury may be perpetuated by ventilation strategies that do not limit lung volumes and airway pressures. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pressure and volume-limited (PVL) ventilation strategies with more traditional mechanical ventilation in adults with ALI and ARDS.

Methods and Findings

We searched Medline, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR and CENTRAL, related articles on PubMed™, conference proceedings and bibliographies of identified articles for randomized trials comparing PVL ventilation with traditional approaches to ventilation in critically ill adults with ALI and ARDS. Two reviewers independently selected trials, assessed trial quality, and abstracted data. We identified ten trials (n

1,749) meeting study inclusion criteria. Tidal volumes achieved in control groups were at the lower end of the traditional range of 10–15 mL/kg. We found a clinically important but borderline statistically significant reduction in hospital mortality with PVL [relative risk (RR) 0.84; 95% CI 0.70, 1.00; p

0.05]. This reduction in risk was attenuated (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.74, 1.09, p

0.27) in a sensitivity analysis which excluded 2 trials that combined PVL with open-lung strategies and stopped early for benefit. We found no effect of PVL on barotrauma; however, use of paralytic agents increased significantly with PVL (RR 1.37; 95% CI, 1.04, 1.82; p

0.03).

Conclusions

This systematic review suggests that PVL strategies for mechanical ventilation in ALI and ARDS reduce mortality and are associated with increased use of paralytic agents.

Introduction

Acute lung injury (ALI) and its most severe form, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), are common life-threatening complications of critical illness. While support with mechanical ventilation is crucial for survival, use of ventilators without regard for lung volumes and airway pressures may perpetuate lung injury and contribute to the associated high mortality of these clinical conditions. Despite recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the benefit of current ventilation strategies designed to limit iatrogenic lung injury remains controversial.

In 1964, Greenfield et al proposed that mechanical ventilation can induce lung injury. [1] Subsequent laboratory investigations established a direct relationship between exposure to increasing tidal volumes and airway pressures, and the development of pulmonary lesions identical to those that characterize ARDS. [2], [3] These findings are consistent across species and in various models of ARDS. [4] One proposed mechanism of injury includes selective over-distention of the diminished volume of functional lung tissue in ARDS. [5] Supporting these preclinical findings, early clinical observations suggested that ventilation strategies to reduce tidal volumes and airway pressures could improve survival. [6]–[8].

These observations challenged the conventional primary goal of mechanical ventilation, which was to achieve normal arterial blood gas values. Accordingly, clinicians used tidal volumes in the range of 10–15 mL/kg with no particular restrictions of airway pressures. [9] In 1993, a Consensus Conference of experts sponsored by the American College of Chest Physicians recommended that plateau airway pressures should not exceed 35 cm H₂O and tidal volumes could be reduced to 5 mL/kg or less to achieve this pressure threshold, even if hypercapnia ensued [10]. The most notable physiological effect of this approach is respiratory acidosis, which can be associated with air hunger, agitation, and patient-ventilator asynchrony, [11] hemodynamic compromise, and acute kidney injury, although evidence for the latter effects is limited. [12].

Several RCTs and meta-analyses [13]–[16] exploring the role for pressure and volume-limited (PVL) ventilation strategies in ALI and ARDS diverged in their conclusions. One systematic review of 6 trials involving 1297 patients concluded that PVL reduces mortality at 28 days and at hospital discharge. [16] In contrast, an analysis of 5 trials involving 1,202 patients concluded that “low tidal volumes should not be standard for these patients.” [13] Additional trials have been published since these reports. Our objective was to systematically review all RCTs comparing PVL to more traditional ventilation strategies for adults with ALI and ARDS to clarify the effects on mortality and other relevant outcomes, and to explore differences among study results.

Methods

We conducted this review according to current standards for systematic review and meta-analysis, [17] using a predefined protocol.

Search Strategy

We electronically searched Medline (1966-July 2010), EMBASE (1980-July 2010), HEALTHSTAR (1975-July 2010), and CENTRAL (to July 2010) without language restrictions, and hand-searched abstracts published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Chest, Intensive Care Medicine and Critical Care Medicine (1995–2006). We also screened the reference lists, searched the related articles feature on PubMed™, and contacted investigators on each trial selected for review.

Trial Selection

Reviewers (KB, NA, MM) independently screened all titles and abstracts in duplicate (except conference proceedings) and then the full articles of all potentially relevant citations. We selected RCTs including critically ill patients, of which at least 80% were adults, at least 80% were mechanically ventilated, and at least 80% had ALI (using author's definitions). We resolved disagreements by consensus.

Conceptually, we were interested in trials comparing ventilation strategies that differed with respect to tidal volumes, airway pressures, or both. Therefore, in addition to trials comparing ventilation strategies with explicit constraints on tidal volumes or airway pressures, we also considered trials that observed an incidental gradient in tidal volume (at least 3 mL/kg) or plateau pressure (at least 5 cm H₂O) during the first 7 days of study. We included trials that reported on mortality, barotrauma, duration of mechanical ventilation, use of sedation or paralytic agents, need for acute dialysis, or non-pulmonary organ dysfunction. We excluded quasi-randomized trials, such as those assigning patients by alternate allocation or hospital file number, and trials evaluating high frequency ventilation or oscillation, extracorporeal circulation, or implantable devices to augment gas exchange.

Data Abstraction

Two reviewers (KB, MM) independently abstracted data and methodological features, resolving disagreements in consultation with a third reviewer. We contacted trial investigators for relevant unpublished data and to obtain trial databases. Two reviewers (KB, MM) worked together to collate data with the assistance of a data analyst.

Validity Assessment

We assessed: allocation concealment, baseline similarity of groups (with regard to age, severity of illness, severity of lung injury, airway pressures, non-pulmonary organ dysfunction, and duration of hospitalization); relevant cointerventions (management of acidosis, application of positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP], prone positioning, inhaled nitric oxide, systemic corticosteroids, sedation and weaning protocols), and early stopping. [18] We used the GRADE approach to summarize the quality of evidence for each outcome. [19] In this approach, randomized trials begin as high quality evidence but can be rated down for apparent risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, or suspicion of publication bias.

Quantitative Data Synthesis

To assess effects of PVL on hospital mortality, we used the most protracted follow up in each trial up to hospital discharge. We explored as potential effect modifiers: i) incorporation of ‘open lung’ techniques (using authors' definitions) into experimental PVL strategies; ii) varied thresholds for correcting respiratory acidosis; iii) between-group gradients in tidal volumes, and airway pressures; and iv) case mix effects. We reasoned that each of these might influence the effect of PVL on mortality. To explore a modifying influence of ‘open lung’ strategies, we compared pooled effects among studies with and without ‘open lung’ strategies.

To assess tolerance for respiratory acidosis we planned 4 separate analyses and resolved to report positive findings only if results were consistent. Two subgroup analyses assessed the effect of different approaches to acidosis management. Trials were classified by their pH thresholds for sodium bicarbonate administration as either above or below (i) a clinically reasonable pH threshold (7.25), and (ii) the mean pH threshold across trials. In addition, we conducted 2 univariate meta-regressions [20] to assess the impact on mortality of (i) the pH threshold at which the assigned tidal volume or airway pressure could deviate from protocol and (ii) mean pH thresholds across trials on mortality. For trials that did not allow protocol deviations at pH extremes, we assigned a pH level of 7.00.

To assess the influence of between-group gradients in tidal volume, we conducted meta-regressions of the gradients in assigned tidal volumes, and meta-regressions of the gradients in tidal volumes achieved on day 1. We used the same approach to assess the influence of variable airway pressure gradients and the impact of having mean airway pressures in the 2 groups spanning a threshold of 30 cm H₂O. We hypothesized that treatment effects would be greater in trials in which mean day 1 airway pressures (ideally plateau airway pressures, if available) in the 2 groups were on either side of 30 cm H₂O.

To explore the influence of case mix, we evaluated 2 baseline variables in separate meta-regressions: mean age and mean baseline arterial partial pressure of oxygen/fractional concentration of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂). Baseline data on plateau airway pressure were insufficiently reported to evaluate this variable as an effect modifier. Data on the Lung Injury Score (LIS) [21] and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II Score [22] were too inconsistently reported to evaluate as effect modifiers.

To assess the effect of PVL on barotrauma we pooled trial estimates of the relative risk of barotrauma, using authors' definitions. We also explored the influence of ‘open lung’ ventilation, gradients in assigned and achieved (day1) tidal volume, and airway pressure gradients. To assess the influence of PVL on acute dialysis, we pooled study estimates of the relative risk of instituting dialysis.

We planned to evaluate the effects of PVL on duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU and hospital length of stay. Recognizing that early deaths systematically underestimate the duration of these outcomes among survivors, we pooled data for these outcomes separately among survivors and non-survivors. We also planned sensitivity analyses to explore the influence of weaning and sedation protocols on these outcomes.

We used random effects models [23] to pool results from each trial (taking into consideration variation within and between trials) and Review Manager 4.2.8 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford) to derive summary estimates of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes. We formally assessed for heterogeneity using the Cochran Q statistic [23] (with a threshold p-value <0.10 [24]) and the I² measure. [25], [26] I² values of 0–40%, 30–60%, 50–90% and ≥75% represented modest, moderate, substantial, and considerable heterogeneity, respectively [17]. In exploring possible explanations for heterogeneity, we formally assessed for between-group differences in summary estimates using the z-test for interaction. We tested for publication bias using funnel plot analysis. We conducted meta-regressions using SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

Flow of Included Studies

After evaluation of 14,484 citations, 20 references were evaluated in detail, and 10 were excluded. [27]–[36] Ten trials [37]–[46] involving 1,749 patients met selection criteria (Figure 1). Reviewers achieved complete agreement on trial selection and reasons for exclusion (Table 1). For 2 trials published both in full [39], [42] and in part [34], [35] both sources informed this review. We had access to 2 complete trial databases [40], [43] and 3 partial databases. [38], [39], [41] We contacted several trial investigators [37], [39]–[46] to clarify study procedures. The lead investigator of a foreign language publication [37] of 56 patients, not reported as randomized, confirmed that the trial was randomized. [37].

Figure 1

Trials Evaluated During the Systematic Review of the Literature.

Table 1

Table of Excluded Studies.

Study Characteristics

Table 2 summarizes trial protocols. [37]–[46] Two trials [42], [46] were not explicitly designed to compare PVL with more traditional strategies, but noted an incidental difference in mean tidal volume and plateau airway pressures between groups and consequently met criteria for inclusion. One trial [42] was designed to compare a computer-based versus paper-based implementation of the same PVL protocol, and the investigators observed a reduction in both tidal volumes and airway pressures in the experimental group. The other trial [46] compared low-stretch ventilation guided by peak or alternatively plateau airway pressures, depending on the ventilator mode utilized, to low tidal volume ventilation. In 2 trials, the experimental PVL strategy (and not the control group strategy) incorporated liberal PEEP [39] and recruitment maneuvers. [45] In another trial [46] a liberal PEEP chart and recruitment maneuvers were permitted in both treatment arms.

Table 2

Study Populations and Protocols.

Table 3 summarizes study methods, highlighting features related to the risk of bias. Randomization was concealed in all trials (unclear in 2) and follow up was excellent. Limitations included lack of central randomization (3 trials), and incomplete reporting of potentially relevant co-interventions (5 trials). Additional threats included the necessary lack of blinding (all trials) and stopping early for benefit (3 trials) or futility (3 trials).

Table 3

Scientific Quality of Experimental Methods.

Table 4 summarizes the evolution of respiratory variables in the course of each trial, depicting actual between-groups gradients in tidal volumes and airway pressures. Along with Table 2, this table highlights features relevant to the generalizability of this review, including the limits of tidal volumes and airway pressures in the control groups. Reported mean tidal volumes in control and pressure and volume limited groups ranged from 9.8 to 12 mL/kg and 6.1 to 9.0 mL/kg, respectively, while the between group gradient in achieved tidal volume ranged from 2.0 to 5.6 mL/kg over the first week of study.

Table 4

Study Implementation.

Quantitative Data Synthesis

Mortality

One trial measured “death before discharge home and breathing without assistance” and reported a statistically significant difference favoring a PVL approach (RR 0.78; 95%CI 0.65, 0.93). [43] To derive hospital mortality data from this trial, we used individual patient data. Figure 2 illustrates individual trial estimates of the relative risk of hospital mortality, which varied across trials in both magnitude and direction. In 10 trials [37]–[46] involving 1,749 patients we found lower hospital mortality with PVL (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.70, 1.00, p

0.05), with moderate heterogeneity (I²

43.1%, p

0.07). (Figure 2) In a sensitivity analysis excluding 2 trials [39], [45] that used ‘open lung’ strategies (0.62; 95% CI 0.45, 0.87, p

0.005), the finding of improved hospital mortality with PVL was attenuated (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.74, 1.09, p

0.27), and results could not rule out the possibility of important benefit or harm with PVL. In a post hoc sensitivity analysis, excluding a single trial [37] stated by the authors to be randomized but not using this descriptor in the publication, the RR of hospital mortality using PVL was 0.86 (95% CI 0.72, 1.04; p

0.11).

Figure 2

Forest Plot of Hospital Mortality.

The various analyses that we conducted to assess tolerance for acidosis with PVL strategies as an effect modifier generated inconsistent results and were, therefore, inconclusive (data not shown). Meta-regression analyses did not identify the magnitude of within-study gradients in assigned (or achieved) tidal volumes or airway pressures between treatment groups as important effect modifiers (data not shown). We did not find a linear relationship between study mean age or mean baseline PaO₂/FiO₂ and mortality. However, these analyses were underpowered and limited by the small number of included studies (range 3 to 9).

Barotrauma

Rates of barotrauma varied across trials from 3.8% [41] to 41.7%. [39] Pooling across 7 trials [38]–[43], [45] including 1,497 patients, the relative risk of barotrauma with PVL was 0.90 (95% CI 0.66, 1.24, p

0.53) (Table 5). We found no interaction between barotrauma effects and within-study gradients in tidal volume or airway pressures (data not shown).

Table 5

What is the effect of pressure- and volume-limited ventilation compared to traditional mechanical ventilation with respect to survival and other outcomes in adult ALI and ARDS?

Paralysis

Five trials [38]–[41], [43] (N

1,202) reported on the use of paralysis. The proportion of patients receiving paralytic agents ranged from 21.7% [40] to 74.1%. [38] Compared to patients receiving traditional ventilation, significantly more patients managed with a PVL approach received paralysis (RR 1.37; 95% CI, 1.04, 1.82; p

0.03).

Dialysis

Two trials [39], [40] including 173 patients reported on study initiation of dialysis. We found no effect of PVL on rates of acute dialysis (RR 1.76 95% CI, 0.79, 3.90, p

0.16).

Table 5 applies the GRADE approach to summarize the quality of evidence and relative and absolute estimates of effect of PVL for the 4 binary outcomes of this review (mortality, barotrauma, paralysis and dialysis) [19]. Limitations of the evidence include methodologic weaknesses in the studies, confidence intervals that bordered on no effect for mortality and use of paralytic agents, and inconsistent results for mortality. We chose to rate down the quality of evidence for mortality primarily on the basis of inconsistency of results.

Evolution of gas exchange and organ system failure

We provide descriptive data related to the evolution of pulmonary and non-pulmonary organ dysfunction. While the evolution of gas exchange was measured variably, between-group differences were modest and inconsistent. Measurements of oxygenation over the first week included PaO₂ in 4 trials [34], [38], [41], [43], FiO₂ in 5 trials [38], [40], [41], [43], [45] and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio in 4 trials [38], [39], [43], [45]. Of these, 3 trials [39], [43], [45] noted significant differences in PaO₂/FiO₂ with 1 trial favoring the traditional strategy, [43] and 2 trials (using higher PEEP) [39], [45] favoring a PVL approach. One trial [34] noted a significantly higher PaO₂ favoring the non-experimental arm. While the ARDSNet trial [43] observed lower oxygen requirements among patients treated with a traditional approach, Villar and colleagues [45] found that PVL-treated patients required significantly lower FiO₂. The latter experimental strategy, however, included higher PEEP levels in the PVL strategy. A significantly higher partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) (or daily mean PaCO₂) and significantly lower pH levels (or daily mean pH) over the first week were consistently reported with a PVL strategy in 6 trials [34], [38], [39], [41], [43], [46] and 3 trials [34], [39], [43], respectively.

Three trials [38], [43], [45] evaluated organ system failures. Brochard and colleagues [38] noted a comparable incidence of multiple organ system failure (41%) and nonsignificant differences in the mean number of specific failing organs at day 3, 7 and 14. ARDS Network investigators [43] found significantly fewer days of non-pulmonary organ system failure with PVL compared to traditional ventilation (15±11 vs. 12±11; p

0.006) including days of circulatory, coagulation or renal failure. Villar et al, [45] found that both groups developed additional organ failures after randomization, with patients in the control group developing significantly more organ system failure than patients in the low tidal volume group (p<0.001).

Data on duration of ventilation, ventilator-free days, length of ICU and hospital stay were infrequently reported or reported non-uniformly, which precluded meta-analysis.

Discussion

This systematic review of 10 RCTs comparing PVL strategies to ventilation strategies designed to approach more traditional ventilatory goals in ALI and ARDS suggests that PVL reduces mortality. However, this finding was not robust in sensitivity analyses and the confidence intervals include unity, so some uncertainty remains. We did not detect dose-response interactions between treatment effect and the magnitude the differences in tidal volumes or airway pressures. However, control group ventilation strategies did not achieve the full range of traditional tidal volumes; mean tidal volumes were consistently at the lower end of the traditional range. We found no effects of PVL ventilation on barotrauma, which was an anticipated benefit. We observed more acidosis with PVL strategies and a significant increase in the use of paralytic agents.

The analysis in which we pooled survival data from trials involving 1,749 patients may represent an overestimate of treatment effect. The summary estimate suggests a 16.0% reduction in the relative risk of mortality with PVL, and the confidence intervals suggest that the relative risk of mortality might be reduced as much as 30.0%, or not at all. While the ARDS Network trial [43] contributed 19.9% of the weight toward this summary estimate, the trials of Amato [39] and Villar [45] contributed 8.8% and 9.1% weight (total 17.9% weight), respectively. Although 3 trials [39], [43], [45] stopped early for benefit, the ARDS Network trial [43] enrolled 861 patients and contributed a large number of events (>100) in each treatment arm, and its estimate of treatment effect is therefore unlikely to be biased. However, the primary analysis is strongly influenced by 2 small trials that employed additional open lung strategies and stopped early for benefit after only a small number of events (30 hospital deaths in one trial [39], and 42 in the other [45]). One trial [39] used a correction for multiplicity proposed by Peto [52] et al and Geller [53] et al with a significance level of <0.001 while the other trial [45] used a two-step stopping rule when the between group difference in ICU mortality was ≥20% with at least 45 patients in each arm. Treatment effects from these trials are likely too optimistic. While the corrections proposed for multiple sequential analyses may control for type 1 error they cannot prevent associated changes in the magnitude of treatment effect caused by early termination of small trials. [54] This issue persists in the sensitivity analysis that excluded a single randomized trial [37] not reported as such in the manuscript, but stated to be randomized in discussions with the first author. The summary estimate, excluding this trial, suggests a nonsignificant 14.0% reduction in the relative risk of mortality with PVL, with confidence intervals suggesting that the relative risk of mortality might be reduced as much as 28.0% or increased by as much as 4.0%. While the ARDS Network trial [43] contributed 21.4% of the weight toward the summary estimate of effect in this analysis, the trials of Amato [39] and Villar [45] contributed 9.49% and 9.8% weight (total 19.3% weight), respectively.

Whether or not open lung strategies improve survival is a subject of ongoing controversy. A recent meta-analysis of 6 RCTs involving 2,484 patients and comparing 2 different levels of PEEP (with or without other interventions) suggested that the use of high levels of PEEP may have an independent beneficial effect on mortality with an absolute risk reduction of approximately 5%. [55] Meanwhile, empirical evidence shows that early stopping for perceived benefit, particularly after few events, results in inflated estimates of treatment benefits in RCTs and in subsequent meta-analyses. [18] A sensitivity analysis excluding 2 stopped-early trials [39], [45] using PVL and an open lung approach (RR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74, 1.09; p

0.27) was inconclusive and could not rule out the possibility of important benefit or harm with PVL. Our results are congruent with the lack of apparent dose-response interactions, the lack of effect on barotrauma, and the inconsistency of study findings with respect to rates of non-pulmonary organ dysfunction.

Historically, investigators using high tidal volumes reported high rates of barotrauma in clinical practice. [56] The highest barotrauma rates in this review were noted in trials that either did not impose pressure constraints or permitted high airway pressures. Recent epidemiologic studies in ALI and ARDS have shown that the incidence of barotrauma is lower than in historical series where tidal volumes were much higher. [57] However, our pooled analysis did not detect a reduction in barotrauma with PVL, nor did we detect an interaction with between-group gradients in airway pressures or tidal volumes.

A notable physiological effect of PVL strategies is respiratory acidosis. Among 6 trials reporting on the evolution of arterial carbon dioxide levels there were significantly higher arterial partial pressures of carbon dioxide and lower pH levels over the first week of study. Analyses exploring a possible interaction between tolerance for acidosis and survival effects of PVL were inconclusive.

The higher rate of paralysis with PVL strategies may be related to higher rates of respiratory acidosis and ventilator dysynchrony. While early observational studies suggested that neuromuscular blockade may increase rates of ICU polyneuropathy, a recent RCT suggested that neuromuscular blockade, itself, may improve gas exchange and biological markers of lung injury. [58] A follow-up trial is presently underway to evaluate the effect of paralytic agents on ARDS mortality (NCT00299650).

Pooling results in a systematic review with meta-analysis implicitly assumes that the trials are sufficiently similar with respect to populations, study interventions, measurement of outcomes and methodologic quality that one could reasonably expect a similar underlying treatment effect. While this was our assumption in pooling data across trials, we launched this review with the explicit goal of testing hypotheses to explain the differences among study results. The most prominent of the 10 trials is the ARDS Network trial [43] which enrolled more patients than all of the other trials combined and stopped early after a relatively large number of events, found a significant mortality reduction with PVL and contributed the largest weight to the pooled estimate of effect for mortality in this review. While this trial galvanized a change in the management of ALI and ARDS, we reviewed it in the context of all available RCT evidence comparing the alternative approaches to ventilator management and pooled it with other trials using conservative methods.

Strengths and Limitations

This review was strengthened by following a predetermined protocol for review methods and statistical analysis. Our extensive search strategy allowed us to identify an additional 341 patients from 3 trials [37], [42], [46] not included in prior reviews. [13]–[16] We used duplicate, independent citation screening and data abstraction. We corresponded with lead investigators for each trial. In addition to critically appraising usual methodologic quality of randomized trials, we also considered design characteristics specific to this field that might lead to biased estimates of treatment effect, most notably the confounding effects of open-lung ventilation. Finally, based on between-study variation in clinical protocols and statistically significant heterogeneity, we used random effects models which take into consideration both between-study and within-study variation for pooling data across studies. Random effects models typically generate wider confidence intervals than fixed effects models in the presence of appreciable between-study variability in results. [59] Overall, most trials in this review included measures to reduce bias following randomization and were of moderate quality in reporting important outcomes including mortality, barotrauma, paralysis, and dialysis (see Table 5). However, heterogeneity among trials in adopting these measures and in reporting their results may limit interpretation of the pooled results.

Conclusion

This systematic review suggests that PVL strategies for mechanical ventilation in ALI and ARDS may reduce mortality and, therefore, supports the current practice to ventilate these patients with low tidal volumes. However, we did not find a dose-response effect and this borderline significant finding was not robust in sensitivity analyses. Therefore, some uncertainty regarding the effect of PVL ventilation remains.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Drs. Roy Brower, Marcello Amato and Laurent Brochard for providing their study databases. Additionally, we wish to thank Dr Roy Brower for reviewing the manuscript prior to submission.

Footnotes

Competing Interests: Drs. Burns, Adhikari, Zhang and Zhou have no known or perceived conflicts of interest to declare, including specific financial interests or relationships or affiliations relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Drs. Slutsky, Meade, Guyatt, Stewart and Cook coauthored one of the trials included in this review. Dr. Villar was the first author of a separate randomized trial included in this review. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Funding: Dr. Burns holds a Clinician Scientist Award with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. No funding was received to conduct the systematic review and meta-analysis.

References

1. Greenfield LJ, Ebert PA, Benson DW. Effect of positive pressure ventilation on surface tension properties of lung extracts. Anesthesiology. 1964;25:312–16. [PubMed]

2. Webb HH, Tierney DF. Experimental pulmonary edema due to intermittent positive pressure ventilation with high inflation pressures. Protection by positive end-expiratory pressure. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1974;110:556–65. [PubMed]

3. Kolobow T, Moretti MP, Fumagalli R, Mascheroni D, Prato P, et al. Severe impairment in lung function induced by high peak airway pressure during mechanical ventilation. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987;135:312–15. [PubMed]

4. Meade MO, Cook DJ. The etiology, consequences, and prevention of barotrauma: a critical review of the literature. Clin Intens Care. 1995;6:166–73. [PubMed]

5. Gattinoni L, Pesenti A, Avalli L, Rossi F, Bombino M. Pressure-volume curve of total respiratory system in acute respiratory failure. Computed tomographic scan trial. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987;136:730–36. [PubMed]

6. Hickling KG, Henderson SJ, Jackson R. Low mortality associated with low volume pressure limited ventilation with permissive hypercapnia in severe adult respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 1990;16:372–77. [PubMed]

7. Hickling KG, Howard R. A retrospective survey of treatment and mortality in aspiration pneumonia. Intensive Care Med. 1988;14:617–22. [PubMed]

8. Hickling KG, Walsh J, Henderson S, Jackson R. Low mortality rate in adult respiratory distress syndrome using low-volume, pressure-limited ventilation with permissive hypercapnia: A prospective trial. Crit Care Med. 1994;22:1568–78. [PubMed]

9. Marini JJ. Pressure-targeted, lung-protective ventilatory support in acute lung injury. Chest. 1994;105(Supp):109S–14S. [PubMed]

10. Slutsky AS. Mechanical ventilation. American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Conference. Chest. 1993;104:1833–59. [PubMed]

11. Kallet RH, Corral W, Silverman HJ, Luce JM. Implementation of a low tidal volume ventilation protocol for patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Respir Care. 2001;46:1024–37. [PubMed]

12. Feihl F, Perret C. Permissive hypercapnia: How permissive should we be? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994;150:1722–37. [PubMed]

13. Eichacker PQ, Gerstenberger EP, Banks SM, Cui X, Natanson C. Meta-analysis of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome trials tesing low tidal volumes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:1510–14. [PubMed]

14. Qin ZQ, Wang C. A meta-analysis of clinical studies of low volume ventilation in ARDS. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2003;83(3):224–7. [PubMed]

15. Moran JL, Bersten AD, Solomon PJ. Meta-analysis of controlled trials of ventilation therapy in acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome: an alternative perspective. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:227–35. [PubMed]

16. Petrucci N, Iacovelli W. Lung Protective Ventilation Strategy for the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007;18(3):CD003844. [PubMed]

17. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Version 5.0.1 [updated Sept 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2008; Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

18. Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK, Burns KE, Eggert CH, et al. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;294:2203–09. [PubMed]

19. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. for the GRADE working group. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:995–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

20. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE.Belmont, Calif: Duxbury; 1988. Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. pp. 512–16.

21. Murray JF, Matthay MA, Luce JM, Flick JR. An expanded definition of the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988;134:720–23. [PubMed]

22. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13:818–29. [PubMed]

23. Der Simonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical Trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88. [PubMed]

24. Cochran W. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101–29.

25. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58. [PubMed]

26. Higgins JP, Thomson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Brit Med J. 2003;327:557–60. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

27. Lee PC, Helsmoortel CM, Cohn SM, Fink MP. Are low tidal volumes safe? Chest. 1990;97:425–29. [PubMed]

28. Rappaport SH, Shpiner R, Yoshihara G, Wright J, Chang P. Randomized, prospective trial of pressure-limited versus volume-controlled ventilation in severe respiratory failure. Crit Care Med. 1994;22:22–32. [PubMed]

29. Carvalho CRR, Barbas CSV, Medeiros DM, Magaldi RB, Filho GL, et al. Temporal hemodynamic effects of permissive hypercapnia associated with ideal PEEP in ARDS. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;156:1458–66. [PubMed]

30. Ranieri VM, Suter PM, Tortorella C, De Tuillio R, Dayer JM, et al. Effect of mechanical ventilation on inflammatory mediators in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1999;282:54–61. [PubMed]

31. Esteban A, Alia I, Gordo F, de Pablo R, Suarez J, et al. for the Spanish Lung Failure Collaboration Group. Prospective randomized trial comparing pressure-controlled ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation in ARDS. Chest. 2000;117:1690–96. [PubMed]

32. Niu T, Chen T, Li P. Comparison of the effects of limited airway pressure with permissive hypercapnic ventilation and ventilation with traditional tactics in patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome. Chinese Crit Care Med. 2000;12:36–8.

33. Long Y, Liu DW, Zhou X, Liu HZ, Guo ZJ, et al. The application of individualized ventilation strategies in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi. 2006;29:549–53. [PubMed]

34. McKinley BA, Moore FA, Sailors RM, Cocanour CS, Marquez A, et al. Computerized decision support for mechanical ventilation of trauma induced ARDS: results of a randomized clinical trial. J Trauma. 2001;50:415–24. [PubMed]

35. Amato MB, Barbas CS, Medeiros DM, Schettino Gde P, Lorenzi Filho G, et al. Beneficial effects of the “open lung approach” with low distending pressures in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A prospective, randomized study on mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152(6 Pt1):1835–46. [PubMed]

36. Wang XZ, Lu CJ, Gao FQ, Li XH, Hao D, et al. Comparison of the effects of BiPAP ventilation combined with lung recruitment maneuvers and low tidal volume AC ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Chin J Tuberc Respir Dis. 2007;30:44–47. [PubMed]

37. Wu G, Lu B. The application of low tidal volume pressure-controlled ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Bull Hunan Med Univ. 1998;23:57–8. [PubMed]

38. Brochard L, Roudot-Thoraval F, Roupie E, Delclaux C, Chastre J, et al. Tidal volume reduction for prevention of ventilator-induced lung injury in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158:1831–38. [PubMed]

39. Amato MB, Barbas CSV, Medeiros DM, Magaldi RB, Schettino GP, et al. Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:347–54. [PubMed]

40. Stewart TE, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Granton JT, Hodder RV, et al. Evaluation of a ventilation strategy to prevent barotrauma in patients at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:355–61. [PubMed]

41. Brower RG, Shanholtz CB, Fessler HE, Shade DM, White P, Jr, et al. Prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing traditional versus reduced tidal volume ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:1492–98. [PubMed]

42. East TD, Heermann LK, Bradshaw RL, Lugo A, Sialors RM, et al. Proc AMIA Symp; 1999. Efficacy of computerized decision support for mechanical ventilation: results of a prospective multicenter randomized trial. pp. 251–55. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

43. 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;342:1301–08. [PubMed]

44. Orme J, Jr, Romney JS, Hopkins RO, Pope D, Chan KJ, et al. Pulmonary function and health-related quality of life in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167:690–94. [PubMed]

45. Villar J, Kacmarek RM, Perez-Mendez L, 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;34:1311–18. [PubMed]

46. Sun J-J, Yang M-W, Wang C-H, Li C-H, Qin W-H, et al. Clinical effects of low stretch ventilation on acute respiratory distress syndrome. Chin Crit Care Med. 2009;21:209–612. [PubMed]

47. Le Gall JR, Loirat P, Alperovitch A, Glaser P, Granthil C, et al. A simplified acute physiology score for ICU patients. Crit Care Med. 1984;12:975–77. [PubMed]

48. Cullen DJ, Civettta JM, Briggs BA, Ferrara LC. Therapeutic intervention scoring system: A method for quantitative comparison of patient care. Crit Care Med. 1974;2:57–60. [PubMed]

49. Marshall JC, Cook DK, Christou NV, Bernard GR, Sprung CL, et al. Multiple organ dysfunction score: a reliable descriptor of a complex clinical outcome. Crit Care Med. 1995;23:1638–52. [PubMed]

50. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, Zimmerman JE, Bergner M, et al. The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill, hospitalized adults. Chest. 1991;100:1619–36. [PubMed]

51. Baker SP, O'Neill B, Haddon W, Jr, Long WB. The Injury Severity Score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluation emergency care. J Trauma. 1974;14:187–96. [PubMed]

52. Peto R, Pick MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient I. Introduction and design. Br J Cancer. 1977;34:585–612. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

53. Geller NL, Pocock SJ. Interim analysis in randomized clinical trials: ramifications and guides for practitioners. Biometrics. 1987;43:213–23. [PubMed]

54. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD. Estimation issues in clinical trials and overviews. Stat Med. 1990;9:657–71. [PubMed]

55. Phoenix SI, Paravastu S, Columb M, Vincent JL, Nirmalan M. Does a Higher Positive End Expiratory Pressure Decrease Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:1098–1105. [PubMed]

56. Balk R, Bone RC. The Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Med Clin N America. 1983;67:685–700. [PubMed]

57. Brun-Buisson C, Minelli C, Bertolini G, Brazzi L, Pimentel J, et al. . ALIVE study Group. Epidemiology and outcome of acute lung injury in European intensive care units. Results from the ALIVE study. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:51–61. [PubMed]

58. Gainnier M, Roch A, Forel JM, Thirion X, Arnal JM, et al. Effect of neuromuscular blocking agents on gas exchange in patients presenting with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:113–19. [PubMed]

59. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA. Feldman HI. Anti-Lymphocyte Antibody Induction Therapy Study Group. Individual patient-versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: Ecological bias rears its ugly head. Statist Med: 2002;21:371–87. [PubMed]

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of
Public Library of Science