by Ibarra-Estrada, Miguel Á.; García-Salas, Yessica;
Mireles-Cabodevila, Eduardo; López-Pulgarín, José A.; Chávez-Peña,
Quetzalcóatl; García-Salcido, Roxana; Mijangos-Méndez, Julio C.;
Aguirre-Avalos, Guadalupe
Critical Care Medicine: April 2022 -
Volume 50 - Issue 4 - p 586-594
OBJECTIVES:
Airway pressure release ventilation is a ventilatory mode
characterized by a mandatory inverse inspiratory:expiratory ratio with a very
short expiratory phase, aimed to avoid derecruitment and allow spontaneous
breathing. Recent basic and clinical evidence suggests that this mode could be
associated with improved outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress
syndrome. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between airway
pressure release ventilation and traditional ventilation targeting low tidal
volume, in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019.
DESIGN:
Single-center randomized controlled trial.
SETTING:
ICU of a Mexican referral center dedicated to care of
patients with confirmed diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019.
PATIENTS:
Ninety adult intubated patients with acute respiratory
distress syndrome associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019.
INTERVENTIONS:
Within 48 hours after intubation, patients were randomized
to either receive ventilatory management with airway pressure release
ventilation or continue low tidal volume ventilation.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:
Forty-five patients in airway pressure release ventilation
group and 45 in the low tidal volume group were included. Ventilator-free days
were 3.7 (0–15) and 5.2 (0–19) in the airway pressure release ventilation and
low tidal volume groups, respectively (p = 0.28). During the first 7 days,
patients in airway pressure release ventilation had a higher Pao2/Fio2 (mean
difference, 26 [95%CI, 13–38]; p < 0.001) and static compliance
(mean difference, 3.7 mL/cm H2O [95% CI, 0.2–7.2]; p = 0.03), higher
mean airway pressure (mean difference, 3.1 cm H2O [95% CI, 2.1–4.1]; p <
0.001), and higher tidal volume (mean difference, 0.76 mL/kg/predicted body
weight [95% CI, 0.5–1.0]; p < 0.001). More patients in airway
pressure release ventilation had transient severe hypercapnia, defined as an
elevation of Pco2 at greater than or equal to 55 along with a pH less than
7.15 (42% vs 15%; p = 0.009); other outcomes were similar. Overall
mortality was 69%, with no difference between the groups (78% in airway
pressure release ventilation vs 60% in low tidal volume; p = 0.07).
CONCLUSIONS:
In conclusion, when compared with low tidal volume, airway
pressure release ventilation was not associated with more ventilator-free days
or improvement in other relevant outcomes in patients with severe coronavirus
disease 2019.