The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Original Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 338:347-354 February 5, 1998 Number 6
NextNext

Effect of a Protective-Ventilation Strategy on Mortality in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Marcelo Britto Passos Amato, M.D., Carmen Silvia Valente Barbas, M.D., Denise Machado Medeiros, M.D., Ricardo Borges Magaldi, M.D., Guilherme Paula Schettino, M.D., Geraldo Lorenzi-Filho, M.D., Ronaldo Adib Kairalla, M.D., Daniel Deheinzelin, M.D., Carlos Munoz, M.D., Roselaine Oliveira, M.D., Teresa Yae Takagaki, M.D., and Carlos Roberto Ribeiro Carvalho, M.D.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF

Commentary
-Editorial
 by Hudson, L. D.
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background In patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome, massive alveolar collapse and cyclic lung reopening and overdistention during mechanical ventilation may perpetuate alveolar injury. We determined whether a ventilatory strategy designed to minimize such lung injuries could reduce not only pulmonary complications but also mortality at 28 days in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Methods We randomly assigned 53 patients with early acute respiratory distress syndrome (including 28 described previously), all of whom were receiving identical hemodynamic and general support, to conventional or protective mechanical ventilation. Conventional ventilation was based on the strategy of maintaining the lowest positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) for acceptable oxygenation, with a tidal volume of 12 ml per kilogram of body weight and normal arterial carbon dioxide levels (35 to 38 mm Hg). Protective ventilation involved end-expiratory pressures above the lower inflection point on the static pressure–volume curve, a tidal volume of less than 6 ml per kilogram, driving pressures of less than 20 cm of water above the PEEP value, permissive hypercapnia, and preferential use of pressure-limited ventilatory modes.

Results After 28 days, 11 of 29 patients (38 percent) in the protective-ventilation group had died, as compared with 17 of 24 (71 percent) in the conventional-ventilation group (P<0.001). The rates of weaning from mechanical ventilation were 66 percent in the protective-ventilation group and 29 percent in the conventional-ventilation group (P = 0.005); the rates of clinical barotrauma were 7 percent and 42 percent, respectively (P = 0.02), despite the use of higher PEEP and mean airway pressures in the protective-ventilation group. The difference in survival to hospital discharge was not significant; 13 of 29 patients (45 percent) in the protective-ventilation group died in the hospital, as compared with 17 of 24 in the conventional-ventilation group (71 percent, P = 0.37).

Conclusions As compared with conventional ventilation, the protective strategy was associated with improved survival at 28 days, a higher rate of weaning from mechanical ventilation, and a lower rate of barotrauma in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Protective ventilation was not associated with a higher rate of survival to hospital discharge.


Source Information

From the Respiratory Intensive Care Unit, Pulmonary Division, Hospital das Clínicas, University of São Paulo (M.B.P.A., C.S.V.B., D.M.M., R.B.M., G.P.P.S., G.L.-F., R.A.K., D.D., T.Y.T., C.R.R.C.); and the General Intensive Care Unit, Santa Casa de Misericórdia, Porto Alegre (C.M., R.O.) — both in Brazil. Presented in part at the International Conference of the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, New Orleans, May 10–15, 1996.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Amato at 135 Rua Dr. Joel Lagos, CEP 05344-000 São Paulo, Brazil.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Protective Ventilation for the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Chiche J.-D., Brunet F., Lamy M., Kacmarek R., Parsons P. E., Matthay M., Manning H. L., Shapira M. Y., Sviri S., Linton D. M., Weg J. G., Anzueto A., Amato M. B.P., Barbas C. S.V., Carvalho C. R.R., Stewart T. E., Meade M. O., Slutsky A. S.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1998; 339:196-199, Jul 16, 1998. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.