The adverse effects of mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) arise from two main causes: unphysiological increases of transpulmonary pressure and unphysiological increases/decreases of pleural pressure during positive or negative pressure ventilation. The transpulmonary pressure-related side effects primarily account for ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) while the pleural pressure-related side effects primarily account for hemodynamic alterations. The changes of transpulmonary pressure and pleural pressure resulting from a given applied driving pressure depend on the relative elastances of the lung and chest wall. The term ‘volutrauma’ should refer to excessive strain, while ‘barotrauma’ should refer to excessive stress. Strains exceeding 1.5, corresponding to a stress above ~20 cmH2O in humans, are severely damaging in experimental animals. Apart from high tidal volumes and high transpulmonary pressures, the respiratory rate and inspiratory flow may also play roles in the genesis of VILI. We do not know which fraction of mortality is attributable to VILI with ventilation comparable to that reported in recent clinical practice surveys (tidal volume ~7.5 ml/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ~8 cmH2O, rate ~20 bpm, associated mortality ~35%). Therefore, a more complete and individually personalized understanding of ARDS lung mechanics and its interaction with the ventilator is needed to improve future care. Knowledge of functional lung size would allow the quantitative estimation of strain. The determination of lung inhomogeneity/stress raisers would help assess local stresses; the measurement of lung recruitability would guide PEEP selection to optimize lung size and homogeneity. Finding a safety threshold for mechanical power, normalized to functional lung volume and tissue heterogeneity, may help precisely define the safety limits of ventilating the individual in question. When a mechanical ventilation set cannot be found to avoid an excessive risk of VILI, alternative methods (such as the artificial lung) should be considered.

Several factors have been recognized as possible triggers of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).The first is pressure (thus the 'barotrauma'), then the volume (hence the 'volutrauma'), finally the cyclic opening-closing of the lung units ('atelectrauma'). Less attention has been paid to the respiratory rate and the flow, although both theoretical considerations and experimental evidence attribute them a significant role in the generation of VILI. The initial injury to the lung parenchyma is necessarily mechanical and it could manifest as an unphysiological distortion of the extracellular matrix and/or as micro-fractures in the hyaluronan, likely the most fragile polymer embedded in the matrix. The order of magnitude of the energy required to break a molecular bond between the hyaluronan and the associated protein is 1.12×10 -16 Joules (J), 70-90% higher than the average energy delivered by a single breath of 1L assuming a lung elastance of 10 cmH 2 O/L (0.5 J). With a normal statistical distribution of the bond strength some polymers will be exposed each cycle to an energy large enough to rupture. Both the extracellular matrix distortion and the polymer fractures lead to inflammatory increase of capillary permeability with edema if a pulmonary blood flow is sufficient. The mediation analysis of higher vs. lower tidal volume and PEEP studies suggests that the driving pressure, more than tidal volume, is the best predictor of VILI, as inferred by increased mortality. This is not surprising, as both tidal volume and respiratory system elastance (resulting in driving pressure) may independently contribute to the mortality. For the same elastance driving pressure is a predictor similar to plateau pressure or tidal volume. Driving pressure is one of the components of the mechanical power, which also includes respiratory rate, flow and PEEP. Finding the threshold for mechanical power would greatly simplify assessment and prevention of VILI.

No abstract

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE What We Already Know about This Topic Positive end-expiratory pressure protects against ventilation-induced lung injury by improving homogeneity of ventilation, but positive end-expiratory pressure contributes to the mechanical power required to ventilate the lung What This Article Tells Us That Is New This in vivo study (36 pigs mechanically ventilated in the prone position) suggests that low levels of positive end-expiratory pressure reduce injury associated with atelectasis, and above a threshold level of power, positive end-expiratory pressure causes lung injury and adverse hemodynamics Background Positive end-expiratory pressure is usually considered protective against ventilation-induced lung injury by reducing atelectrauma and improving lung homogeneity. However, positive end-expiratory pressure, together with tidal volume, gas flow, and respiratory rate, contributes to the mechanical power required to ventilate the lung. This study aimed at investigating the effects of increasing mechanical power by selectively modifying its positive end-expiratory pressure component. Methods Thirty-six healthy piglets (23.3 ± 2.3 kg) were ventilated prone for 50 h at 30 breaths/min and with a tidal volume equal to functional residual capacity. Positive end-expiratory pressure levels (0, 4, 7, 11, 14, and 18 cm H2O) were applied to six groups of six animals. Respiratory, gas exchange, and hemodynamic variables were recorded every 6 h. Lung weight and wet-to-dry ratio were measured, and histologic samples were collected. Results Lung mechanical power was similar at 0 (8.8 ± 3.8 J/min), 4 (8.9 ± 4.4 J/min), and 7 (9.6 ± 4.3 J/min) cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure, and it linearly increased thereafter from 15.5 ± 3.6 J/min (positive end-expiratory pressure, 11 cm H2O) to 18.7 ± 6 J/min (positive end-expiratory pressure, 14 cm H2O) and 22 ± 6.1 J/min (positive end-expiratory pressure, 18 cm H2O). Lung elastances, vascular congestion, atelectasis, inflammation, and septal rupture decreased from zero end-expiratory pressure to 4 to 7 cm H2O (P < 0.0001) and increased progressively at higher positive end-expiratory pressure. At these higher positive end-expiratory pressure levels, striking hemodynamic impairment and death manifested (mortality 0% at positive end-expiratory pressure 0 to 11 cm H2O, 33% at 14 cm H2O, and 50% at 18 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure). From zero end-expiratory pressure to 18 cm H2O, mean pulmonary arterial pressure (from 19.7 ± 5.3 to 32.2 ± 9.2 mmHg), fluid administration (from 537 ± 403 to 2043 ± 930 ml), and noradrenaline infusion (0.04 ± 0.09 to 0.34 ± 0.31 μg · kg−1 · min−1) progressively increased (P < 0.0001). Lung weight and lung wet-to-dry ratios were not significantly different across the groups. The lung mechanical power level that best discriminated between more versus less severe damage was 13 ± 1 J/min. Conclusions Less than 7 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure reduced atelectrauma encountered at zero end-expiratory pressure. Above a defined power threshold, sustained positive end-expiratory pressure contributed to potentially lethal lung damage and hemodynamic impairment.