Effect of Lung Recruitment and Titrated Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) vs Low PEEP on Mortality in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome A Randomized Clinical Trial

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_CAVALCANTI_Effect_of_Lung_Recruitment_and_Titrated_Positive_EndExpiratory_2017.PDF (510.37 KB)
Citações na Scopus
655
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2017
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
Autores
CAVALCANTI, Alexandre Biasi
SUZUMURA, Erica Aranha
LARANJEIRA, Ligia Nasi
PAISANI, Denise de Moraes
DAMIANI, Lucas Petri
GUIMARAES, Helio Penna
ROMANO, Edson Renato
REGENGA, Marisa de Moraes
TANIGUCHI, Luzia Noriko Takahashi
TEIXEIRA, Cassiano
Citação
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, v.318, n.14, p.1335-1345, 2017
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
IMPORTANCE The effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE To determine if lung recruitment associated with PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance decreases 28-day mortality of patients with moderate to severe ARDS compared with a conventional low-PEEP strategy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 120 intensive care units (ICUs) from 9 countries from November 17, 2011, through April 25, 2017, enrolling adults with moderate to severe ARDS. INTERVENTIONS An experimental strategy with a lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance (n = 501; experimental group) or a control strategy of low PEEP (n = 509). All patients received volume-assist control mode until weaning. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomewas all-cause mortality until 28 days. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay; ventilator-free days through day 28; pneumothorax requiring drainage within 7 days; barotrauma within 7 days; and ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality. RESULTS A total of 1010 patients (37.5% female; mean [SD] age, 50.9 [17.4] years) were enrolled and followed up. At 28 days, 277 of 501 patients (55.3%) in the experimental group and 251 of 509 patients (49.3%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.42; P =.041). Compared with the control group, the experimental group strategy increased 6-month mortality (65.3% vs 59.9%; HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.38; P =.04), decreased the number of mean ventilator-free days (5.3 vs 6.4; difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P =.03), increased the risk of pneumothorax requiring drainage (3.2% vs 1.2%; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 4.0%; P =.03), and the risk of barotrauma (5.6% vs 1.6%; difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 6.5%; P =.001). There were no significant differences in the length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a strategy with lung recruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the routine use of lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration in these patients.
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/24210
Referências
  1. Amato MBP, 2015, NEW ENGL J MED, V372, P747, DOI 10.1056/NEJMsa1410639
  2. Amato MBP, 1998, NEW ENGL J MED, V338, P347, DOI 10.1056/NEJM199802053380602
  3. ART Investigators, 2012, TRIALS, V13, P153
  4. Beitler JR, 2016, INTENS CARE MED, V42, P1427, DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4423-3
  5. Bellani G, 2016, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V315, P788, DOI 10.1001/jama.2016.0291
  6. BERNARD GR, 1994, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V149, P818
  7. Borges JB, 2006, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V174, P268, DOI 10.1164/rccm.200506-97OC
  8. Briel M, 2010, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V303, P865, DOI 10.1001/jama.2010.218
  9. Brower RG, 2004, NEW ENGL J MED, V351, P327
  10. Brower RG, 2000, NEW ENGL J MED, V342, P1301
  11. Calfee CS, 2014, LANCET RESP MED, V2, P611, DOI [10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70097-9, 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)20092-9]
  12. Chanques G, 2013, CRIT CARE MED, V41, P2177, DOI 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828c2d7a
  13. Damiani Lucas Petri, 2017, Rev. bras. ter. intensiva, V29, P142, DOI [10.5935/0103-507x.20170024, 10.5935/0103-507X.20170024]
  14. de Matos GFJ, 2012, CRIT CARE, V16, DOI 10.1186/cc10602
  15. Famous KR, 2017, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V195, P331, DOI 10.1164/rccm.201603-0645OC
  16. Gattinoni L, 2006, NEW ENGL J MED, V354, P1775, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa052052
  17. Gattinoni L, 2016, INTENS CARE MED, V42, P663, DOI 10.1007/s00134-015-4200-8
  18. Gattinoni L, 2010, CRIT CARE MED, V38, pS539, DOI 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f1fcf7
  19. Goligher EC, 2015, AM J RESP CRIT CARE, V192, P1416, DOI 10.1164/rccm.201410-1832CP
  20. Guerin C, 2016, CRIT CARE, V20, DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1556-2
  21. Guerin C, 2013, NEW ENGL J MED, V368, P2159, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1214103
  22. Guerin C, 2011, ANN INTENSIVE CARE, V1, DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-1-9
  23. Herridge MS, 2011, NEW ENGL J MED, V364, P1293, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1011802
  24. Hodgson C, 2016, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V11
  25. Hodgson CL, 2011, CRIT CARE, V15, DOI 10.1186/cc10249
  26. Kacmarek RM, 2016, CRIT CARE MED, V44, P32, DOI 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001383
  27. Meade MO, 2008, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V299, P637, DOI 10.1001/jama.299.6.637
  28. Mercat A, 2008, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V299, P646, DOI 10.1001/jama.299.6.646
  29. Retamal J, 2015, ACTA ANAESTH SCAND, V59, P1161, DOI 10.1111/aas.12563
  30. Suzumura EA, 2014, INTENS CARE MED, V40, P1227, DOI 10.1007/s00134-014-3413-6

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/InCor
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/09