What Works in a Patient With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome?


INTRODUCTION

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was first recognized in the 1960s, when Ashbaugh et al. described a clinical constellation of hypoxemic respiratory failure accompanied by loss of pulmonary compliance and the histologic hallmark of alveolar hyaline membranes. From the first case series it was noted that a wide range of pulmonary insults incited a similar pathophysiology characterized by noncardiogenic pulmonary edema with diffuse, inflammatory alveolar injury. Markers of lung permeability, inflammation, and hyaline membrane formation are not routinely measured, however, and diagnosis focuses on clinical features and imaging findings. In 1992, the American-European consensus conference recommended criteria based on acute timing of onset, hypoxemia (Pa o 2 :Fi o 2 < 200 mm Hg for ARDS and < 300 mm Hg for acute lung injury), pulmonary consolidation represented by bilateral infiltrates on chest radiography, and absence of cardiogenic pulmonary edema as demonstrated by a pulmonary artery wedge pressure of less than 18 mm Hg.

The Berlin criteria published in 2012 refined these diagnostic features and remains the standard clinical definition of ARDS used today. Similar to the earlier consensus guidelines, it identified ARDS by the presence of hypoxemia and bilateral opacities on chest imaging consistent with noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, which manifest within 7 days of a known clinical insult or new or worsening respiratory symptoms ( Table 55.1 ). It clarified the previous consensus guidelines by 1) specifying the time frame of an acute onset, 2) establishing a minimum level of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) before the diagnosis of hypoxemia was made, 3) expanding imaging modalities to identify bilateral consolidations from just chest radiographs to include computed tomography (CT), and 4) removing the requirement for pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) to establish noncardiogenic edema. The Berlin definition also risk stratified patients into groups based on their degree of hypoxemia with a minimum level of ventilatory support into mild (200 mm Hg < Pa o 2 :Fi o 2 ≤ 300 mm Hg), moderate (100 mm Hg < Pa o 2 :Fi o 2 ≤ 200 mm Hg), and severe (Pa o 2 :Fi o 2 ≤ 100mm Hg) ARDS. Increasing severity of ARDS correlated with a rise in mortality.

TABLE 55.1
The Berlin Definition of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
Timing Within 1 week of a known clinical insult or new or worsening respiratory symptoms
Chest imaging Bilateral opacities not fully explained by effusions, lobar/lung collapse, or nodules, demonstrated on chest radiograph or computed tomography scan
Origin of edema Respiratory failure not fully explained by cardiac failure or fluid overload
Requires objective assessment (e.g., echocardiography) to exclude hydrostatic edema if no risk factor present
Oxygenation
Mild 200 mm Hg < Pa o 2 :Fi o 2 ≤ 300 mm Hg with PEEP or CPAP ≥ 5 cm H 2 O
Moderate 100 mm Hg < Pa o 2 :Fi o 2 ≤ 200 mmHg with PEEP ≥ 5cm H 2 O
Severe Pa o 2 :Fi o 2 ≤ 100 mm Hg with PEEP ≥ 5 cm H 2 O
The Berlin consensus guidelines established in 2012, which refined and expanded the original American European Consensus Conference (AECC) definition. To meet oxygenation criteria, hypoxemia must be present on a minimum level of ventilatory support. Positive pressure may be delivered noninvasively or by mechanical ventilation for the mild ARDS group, but diagnosis of moderate or severe ARDS requires mechanical ventilation.

Numerous conditions that result in either direct or indirect pulmonary injury can incite ARDS ( Table 55.2 ). The most common etiologies include nonpulmonary sepsis, viral or bacterial pneumonia, aspiration of gastric contents, and major trauma, including blunt or penetrating injury and burns. The high incidence of respiratory failure seen in intensive care unit (ICU) patients affected by the novel coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) has brought increasing attention to the role of an immunologic response to viral pneumonia in precipitating ARDS. Other frequently recognized insults include pancreatitis, pulmonary contusion, amniotic fluid and fat emboli, transfusion associated lung injury, and particle inhalation. The likelihood of developing ARDS varies with the predisposing insult. One prospective observational study in mechanically ventilated patients found that only 3% of patients with pancreatitis developed ARDS, whereas 26% of patients with smoke inhalation progressed to ARDS. ICU patients often develop multiple predisposing insults, which increase the risk for developing ARDS. Likewise, preexisting comorbidities can increase a patient’s risk for ARDS, including hypoalbuminemia, cigarette smoking, , and alcohol abuse.

TABLE 55.2
Common Conditions Precipitating Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
Direct Indirect
Pneumonia (bacterial and viral;mycobacterial, fungal, or parasitic rarer) Nonpulmonary sepsis

Aspiration pneumonitis

Nonthoracic trauma
Pulmonary contusion Pancreatitis
Inhalational injury (smoke, other particles, thermal) Burns
Near drowning Transfusion-associated lung injury
Hematopoietic stem cell transplant
Cardiopulmonary bypass
Reperfusion injury after lung transplant or embolectomy
Medications (chemotherapy, amiodarone, radiation)
High-altitude pulmonary edema
Neurogenic edema
Immunologic response to viruses [COVID-19]
Conditions that cause directly or indirectly result in pulmonary injury and place patients at risk for developing ARDS.

These diverse etiologies create a similar pathophysiology that progresses through characteristic phases of injury, repair, and fibrosis. In the acute, exudative phase over days 1 to 7, lung microvascular injury disrupts the barrier function of the endothelium. Neutrophil-mediated endothelial injury is the most clearly documented pathway. Activated neutrophils extravasate into the alveolar space to release proinflammatory factors, including oxidants, proteases, leukotrienes, and platelet-activating factor that injure the epithelium. The combination of damage to both endothelium and epithelium increases alveolar permeability. A proteinaceous pulmonary edema containing neutrophils, macrophages, sloughed epithelial cells, and hyaline membranes accumulates in the alveoli and lung interstitium on the denuded basement membrane. Alveolar macrophages release proinflammatory cytokines, such as IL-1, -6, -8, -10, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, which, in turn, stimulate neutrophil chemotaxis and activation. The alveolar edema inactivates surfactant, resulting in atelectasis. Over the subacute phase in days 7 to 14, repair begins with the proliferation of alveolar type II epithelial cells, squamous metaplasia, and the resorption of some edema. At this stage, fibroblasts begin to infiltrate, and there may be evidence of collagen deposition. Some patients progress to a third, chronic phase characterized by extensive fibrosis, which can result in cyst formation and destruction of lung parenchyma.

Calculating the incidence of ARDS has been limited by its evolving definition and underrecognition in the clinical setting. One important complication in estimating its incidence remains regional variability in ICU resources that make it difficult to differentiate between a true distinction in disease incidence and a disparity in ICU bed allocation. These caveats may partially explain the wide discrepancy in reported incidences, which range from 3.65 cases in Iceland to 71 cases in the United States per 100,000 person years. ,

The LUNG SAFE (Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure) study provided a recent analysis of ARDS epidemiology through a prospective, multicenter, observational design conducted on more than 29,000 ICU patients in 50 countries. The study found that 10% of ICU patients and 23% of mechanically ventilated patients met the diagnostic criteria for ARDS. Mortality increased with the severity of ARDS, ranging from 35% in mild ARDS to 40% for moderate ARDS and 46% in severe ARDS. The causative insult also impacted hospital mortality. Patients with ARDS secondary to trauma had a 24% mortality, whereas ARDS caused by sepsis with a pulmonary source carried a 40.6% mortality. This wide range emphasizes that mortality associated with ARDS may not be mortality caused by ARDS but rather reflect comorbidities such as nonpulmonary organ system dysfunction, immunosuppression, shock, and malignancy. A subsequent analysis of the LUNG SAFE patient data found that hospital mortality in immunocompromised patients was significantly higher than in immunocompetent patients (52% vs. 36%).

A key finding of the LUNG SAFE analysis was the underdiagnosis of ARDS by clinicians; only 51% of mild ARDS and 79% of severe ARDS cases were identified. Congruent with this, the study determined that less than two-thirds of patients with ARDS received lung protective ventilation with low tidal volumes (≤ 8 cc/kg), and plateau pressure was measured in less than half. Recognition of ARDS was associated with implementation of established supportive therapies, including higher PEEP, prone positioning, and neuromuscular blockade.

TREATMENT

Treatment of ARDS focuses on lung protective respiratory support that optimizes gas exchange while minimizing ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). The inciting cause(s) should be identified and addressed, including cultures of infectious sources with a low threshold for empiric antibiotics. Standard ICU supportive care such as enteral nutrition, stress ulcer prophylaxis, and venous thrombosis prophylaxis should be provided. Formal guidelines on management of ARDS suggest an initial stabilization phase that starts with optimization of mechanical ventilation and proceeds to implement additional treatments if the patient does not respond to this first-line measure.

CURRENT THERAPIES

Lung Protective Mechanical Ventilation

Mechanical ventilation has remained the foundation of treating hypoxemic respiratory failure in the setting of stiff, noncompliant lungs since ARDS was first identified. Historically, mechanical ventilation prioritized the normalization of Pa co 2 and pH with higher tidal volumes of 10 to 15 cc/kg predicted body weight. ARDS creates a heterogeneous distribution of consolidation and atelectasis throughout lung parenchyma, decreasing the lung volume available for gas exchange. This results in a smaller effective FRC, a concept termed the “baby lung.” The same tidal volume delivered to fewer aerated alveoli overdistends the viable lung, increasing lung stress and strain, which creates volutrauma. , Repeated recruitment and derecruitment of alveoli likewise generates atelectrauma that increases endothelial permeability, pulmonary edema, and inflammatory mediator release. This mechanism of VILI exacerbates and propagates ARDS. Lung protective ventilation uses low tidal volumes and higher PEEP to maximize alveolar recruitment and gas exchange while minimizing VILI.

Tidal Volumes

The landmark ARDS network study of mechanical ventilation in ARDS compared 861 patients receiving then-standard mechanical ventilation with tidal volumes of 12 cc/kg predicted body weight (PBW) to patients receiving lung protective ventilation with 6 cc/kg tidal volumes. Plateau pressure was maintained at less than 30 cm H 2 O in the lung protective group and less than 50 cm H 2 O in the control group. Lung protective ventilation reduced mortality (31% intervention and 40% control) and increased ventilator-free days. The Pa o 2 to Fi o 2 ratio worsened over the first 72 hours in the lung protective group, presumably reflecting loss of lung recruitment, but this trend normalized and then reversed after 72 hours as VILI began to develop in the control group. Subsequent meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) supported the mortality benefit of low tidal volume ventilation (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58–0.96, p = .02). A more recent meta-analysis of seven RCTs including a total of 1481 patients showed a trend toward lower mortality with low tidal volume versus high tidal volume ventilation (mortality 30.6% vs. 40.4%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.8, 95% CI 0.66–0.98). When trials that used low tidal volumes with high PEEP were excluded from the analysis, the trend toward decreased mortality failed to reach significance (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.7–1.08). The degree of tidal volume reduction also had a significant effect on mortality. A multivariate analysis of the LUNG SAFE data on factors associated with outcomes found that the impact of tidal volume on hospital mortality was unclear, however. Measure of pressure, including peak inspiratory, plateau, PEEP, and driving pressure, impacted prognosis more significantly.

In the absence of severe metabolic acidosis, mechanical ventilation in patients with ARDS should begin with tidal volumes of 6 cc/kg PBW. PBW is calculated based on patient height and sex. High respiratory rates of 25 to 32 are typically required to moderate the consequent respiratory acidosis associated with these lower tidal volumes. Permissive hypercapnia to Pa co 2 of 50 mm Hg is generally tolerated if patients are synchronous with the ventilator.

Positive End Expiratory Pressure

PEEP is a critical component of lung protective ventilation that improves gas exchange, recruits alveoli, increases lung compliance, and reduces atelectrauma. The ideal level of PEEP minimizes cyclic alveolar derecruitment during exhalation while avoiding alveolar overdistension with tidal volume delivery. PEEP can also adversely impact hemodynamics by decreasing venous return and increasing right ventricular afterload. ,

Calculating the optimal PEEP has proven an ongoing challenge in ARDS management. The “open lung” model uses high PEEP to maintain alveolar opening across the respiratory cycle, but recent data call the benefit of high PEEP into question. A study of 549 patients with ARDS (Pa o 2 : Fi o 2 < 300 mm Hg) randomized to either a high or low PEEP ventilation strategy with tidal volumes 6 cc/kg PBW found no outcome differences between arms. Two other trials have shown improvement in secondary endpoints such as compliance and oxygenation in groups treated with high PEEP, but none have demonstrated a difference in mortality. , A meta-analysis of these three studies found that high PEEP decreased mortality in moderate to severe ARDS (34.1% vs. 39.1%, p < .05), whereas high PEEP trended toward an increased mortality in mild ARDS (27.2% vs. 19.4%, p = .07). Averaged over these studies, high PEEP ranged from 15 ± 3.6 cm H 2 O, whereas low PEEP was 9 ± 2.7 cm H 2 O. Congruent with this, high PEEP in the clinical setting is often considered greater than 12 cm H 2 O.

Given the heterogeneous nature of ARDS, one criticism of these studies has been that patient randomization masks subphenotypes with recruitable parenchyma who will benefit more from high PEEP. Imaging data on 68 patients with ARDS shows a wide range of recruitable lung volume on chest CT, ranging from 13% ± 11% of lung weight. Patients with a higher recruitable lung percentage by imaging had poorer oxygenation, lung compliance, and mortality. Despite the correlation found between extent of consolidation and clinically measured variables, titrating PEEP based on lung compliance has not improved clinical outcomes. One study randomized 1010 patients to receive PEEP titrated by standardized ARDSNet Fi o 2 /PEEP tables or a lung recruitment maneuver followed by a decremental PEEP trial titrated to best lung compliance. Patients in the experimental group had a higher mortality, fewer ventilator-free days, and higher incidence of both barotrauma and pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement compared with the standardized PEEP group.

Other methods for titrating PEEP differentiate between chest wall and lung mechanics. Esophageal manometry places a balloon catheter in the midesophagus to estimate pleural pressure, the pressure difference across the lung. An initial study of esophageal pressure titrated PEEP in ARDS showed an improvement in Pa o 2 to Fi o 2 , but a subsequent RCT in 200 patients with moderate to severe ARDS found no difference in death or ventilator-free days when PEEP was titrated by esophageal pressure as opposed to ARDSNet PEEP/Fi o 2 tables. Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a noninvasive modality that creates a ventilation map based on changes in chest wall resistance over the respiratory cycle. EIT-derived maps of pressure-volume curves can identify areas of overdistension and alveolar collapse in animal models, and it can be combined with perfusion mapping to create real-time V/Q monitoring in the ICU. One small study found that PEEP titration based on EIT was associated with significant improvement in oxygenation, compliance, driving pressure, and ventilator weaning success rate in severe ARDS. Larger, randomized trials are needed to further investigate the impact of EIT on PEEP management.

Plateau Pressure and Driving Pressure

A subset analysis of the LUNG SAFE study identified plateau pressure as a modifiable factor that is strongly associated with mortality. High plateau pressures reflect either worse disease severity or inadequate recruitment of consolidated lung, and it is an independent risk factor for increased mortality. A plateau pressure of at least 30 cm H 2 O is associated with barotrauma, and one recent study of 778 patients with moderate to severe ARDS found an increased risk for mortality with plateau pressure of at least 30 cm H 2 O.

Like plateau pressure, driving pressure (Pplateau—PEEP) is correlated with lung parenchymal compliance. One retrospective study found that driving pressure was a better predictor of mortality than plateau pressure, but no superiority of driving pressure over plateau pressure on mortality was found in the LUNG SAFE cohort or secondary analysis of two RCTs. In patients with plateau pressure maintained within the protective range of less than 27 cm H 2 O, elevated driving pressure was an independent risk factor for acute cor pulmonale. This suggests a potential role for driving pressure as a supplementary measure when plateau pressure is already well controlled.

In summary, plateau pressure should be maintained at less than 30 cm H 2 O in ARDS. Current data do not support the use of driving pressure rather than plateau pressure.

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here