IntroductionTo explore the hypothesis that early ventilation strategies influence clinical outcomes in lung transplantation, we have examined our routine ventilation practices in terms of tidal volumes (Vt) and inflation pressures.Methods 124 bilateral lung transplants between 2010 and 2013 were retrospectively assigned to low (<6ml/kg), medium (6-8ml/kg) and high (>8ml/kg) Vt groups based on ventilation characteristics during the first 6 hours after surgery. Those same 124 patients were also stratified to low-pressure (<25cm H2O) and high-pressure (≥25cm H2O) groups.
ResultsEighty per cent of patients were ventilated using pressure control mode. Low, medium and high tidal volumes were applied to 10%, 43%, and 47% of patients respectively. After correcting for patients requiring extracorporeal support, there was no difference in short to mid-term outcomes among the different Vt groups. Low inflation pressures were applied to 61% of patients, who had a shorter length of ICU stay (5 vs. 12 days; p=0.012), higher FEV1 at 3 months (77.8% vs. 60.3%; p<0.001), and increased 6-month survival rate (95% vs. 77%; p=0.008).
ConclusionLow Vt ventilation has not been fully adopted in our practice. Ventilation with higher inflation pressures, but not tidal volumes, were significantly associated with poorer outcomes after lung transplantation.Response to Reviewers: Dear Prof. Lumb,
Article ID: JCRC-D-15-00340 -Mechanical ventilation following lung transplantationWe are most grateful to the reviewers for taking the time and care to appraise this manuscript, and for your constructive critique. We have addressed all of the points that were raised and have amended the manuscript accordingly. We feel that your suggestions has significantly improved the original manuscript.Responses to Reviewer #1 Reviewer #1: "The manuscript does not add anything new to the literature. It has been known for a very long time that excessive tidal volume and/or inflation pressures adversely affect patient outcome."Author response: We are grateful that you have taken the time to review our manuscript, although we are disappointed by your conclusions. We have made detailed arguments in both the introduction and discussion that highlight the need for this work within lung transplantation, combined with our unique approach to this clinical problem. Your statement is in direct opposition with the views of the other reviewers, who have helpfully pointed out the potential importance of our study within this field. Your critique also fails to acknowledge the major ongoing debate regarding the special importance of driving pressures, and the relative roles of tidal volumes and pressures in acute lung injury. As a rebuttal, we would respectfully suggest that our manuscript does add to the existing body of knowledge on this topic. As stated in the manuscript, we believe that our manuscript fills an important gap within the literature on VALI by providing new observations on lung ventilation practices in lung transplant recipients, a population that was...