Comparison of limited driving pressure ventilation and low tidal volume strategies in adults with acute respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial
Issued Date
2024-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
17534666
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85192861052
Pubmed ID
38726850
Journal Title
Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease
Volume
18
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease Vol.18 (2024)
Suggested Citation
Tongyoo S., Viarasilpa T., Deawtrakulchai P., Subpinyo S., Suppasilp C., Permpikul C. Comparison of limited driving pressure ventilation and low tidal volume strategies in adults with acute respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial. Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease Vol.18 (2024). doi:10.1177/17534666241249152 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/98422
Title
Comparison of limited driving pressure ventilation and low tidal volume strategies in adults with acute respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) presents a grave risk to acute respiratory failure patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation has been advocated as a protective strategy against VILI. However, the effectiveness of limited driving pressure (plateau pressure minus positive end-expiratory pressure) remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the efficacy of LTV against limited driving pressure in preventing VILI in adults with respiratory failure. DESIGN: A single-centre, prospective, open-labelled, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This study was executed in medical intensive care units at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. We enrolled acute respiratory failure patients undergoing intubation and mechanical ventilation. They were randomized in a 1:1 allocation to limited driving pressure (LDP; ⩽15 cmH2O) or LTV (⩽8 mL/kg of predicted body weight). The primary outcome was the acute lung injury (ALI) score 7 days post-enrolment. RESULTS: From July 2019 to December 2020, 126 patients participated, with 63 each in the LDP and LTV groups. The cohorts had the mean (standard deviation) ages of 60.5 (17.6) and 60.9 (17.9) years, respectively, and they exhibited comparable baseline characteristics. The primary reasons for intubation were acute hypoxic respiratory failure (LDP 49.2%, LTV 63.5%) and shock-related respiratory failure (LDP 39.7%, LTV 30.2%). No significant difference emerged in the primary outcome: the median (interquartile range) ALI scores for LDP and LTV were 1.75 (1.00-2.67) and 1.75 (1.25-2.25), respectively (p = 0.713). Twenty-eight-day mortality rates were comparable: LDP 34.9% (22/63), LTV 31.7% (20/63), relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.57, p = 0.705. Incidences of newly developed acute respiratory distress syndrome also aligned: LDP 14.3% (9/63), LTV 20.6% (13/63), RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.22, p = 0.348. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with acute respiratory failure, the efficacy of LDP and LTV in averting lung injury 7 days post-mechanical ventilation was indistinguishable. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov database (identification number NCT04035915).