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
Volume 342:1301-1308 May 4, 2000 Number 18
NextNext

Ventilation with Lower Tidal Volumes as Compared with Traditional Tidal Volumes for Acute Lung Injury and the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF

Commentary
-Editorial
 by Tobin, M. J.
-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 Traditional approaches to mechanical ventilation use tidal volumes of 10 to 15 ml per kilogram of body weight and may cause stretch-induced lung injury in patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. We therefore conducted a trial to determine whether ventilation with lower tidal volumes would improve the clinical outcomes in these patients.

Methods Patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized trial. The trial compared traditional ventilation treatment, which involved an initial tidal volume of 12 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and an airway pressure measured after a 0.5-second pause at the end of inspiration (plateau pressure) of 50 cm of water or less, with ventilation with a lower tidal volume, which involved an initial tidal volume of 6 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and a plateau pressure of 30 cm of water or less. The first primary outcome was death before a patient was discharged home and was breathing without assistance. The second primary outcome was the number of days without ventilator use from day 1 to day 28.

Results The trial was stopped after the enrollment of 861 patients because mortality was lower in the group treated with lower tidal volumes than in the group treated with traditional tidal volumes (31.0 percent vs. 39.8 percent, P=0.007), and the number of days without ventilator use during the first 28 days after randomization was greater in this group (mean [±SD], 12±11 vs. 10±11; P=0.007). The mean tidal volumes on days 1 to 3 were 6.2±0.8 and 11.8±0.8 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight (P<0.001), respectively, and the mean plateau pressures were 25±6 and 33±8 cm of water (P<0.001), respectively.

Conclusions In patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation with a lower tidal volume than is traditionally used results in decreased mortality and increases the number of days without ventilator use.


Source Information

The writing committee (Roy G. Brower, M.D., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Michael A. Matthay, M.D., University of California, San Francisco; Alan Morris, M.D., LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City; David Schoenfeld, Ph.D., and B. Taylor Thompson, M.D., Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; and Arthur Wheeler, M.D., Vanderbilt University, Nashville) assumes responsibility for the overall content and integrity of the manuscript. Presented in part at the International Conference of the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, San Diego, Calif., April 26, 1999.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Brower at the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, 600 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21287.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Ventilation with Lower Tidal Volumes as Compared with Traditional Tidal Volumes for Acute Lung Injury
Laffey J. G., Kavanagh B. P., Ney L., Kuebler W. M., Oba Y., Salzman G. A., Brower R. G., Matthay M. A., Wheeler A.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 2000; 343:812-814, Sep 14, 2000. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



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

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.