PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 1, 2024International Journal of Medical Arts0 citationsOpen Access

Comparative Study between Different Levels of Positive End - Expiratory Pressure in non- Acute Respiratory Distress Intensive Care Unit Patients

View Full Paper
MEMohamed Shawky Mohamed EldabourYSYousry Mohamed Abd El SalamMEMohamed Hamdi Mohamed Elkassas

Key Points

  • Higher positive end-expiratory pressure improves oxygenation status, but it does not reduce ventilator-free days or hospital mortality in non-ARDS intensive care patients.
  • Driving pressure decreased to 12.5 cmH2O with higher positive end-expiratory pressure compared to 14.75 cmH2O under lower settings, without altering severe hypoxemia rates.
  • Prospective randomized controlled trial of 80 patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation highlights that elevated positive end-expiratory pressure offers no survival gain.

Abstract

Background: Positive end-expiratory pressure PEEP is commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients to prevent alveolar collapse and improve oxygenation. However, optimal PEEP levels remain controversial, especially in non-acute respiratory distress syndrome patients in the intensive care unit ICU.The aim of the work: To compare the effects of different PEEP levels on oxygenation status and clinical outcomes in non-acute respiratory distress ICU patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial included 80 ICU patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome who required invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomized to receive low 4-8 cmH2O or high 9-12 cmH2O PEEP levels. The primary outcomes were Pao2 to Fio2 ratio, as an indicator for improvement of oxygenation parameter and number of ventilator-free days at day seven.Results: The Fio2 values for the 4 to 8 cm H2O group averaged 0.42 ±0.19 and differed significantly from the 9 to 12 cm H2O group, which averaged 0.40 ±0.22 p < 0.001. However, no significant differences were found in respiratory rates, heart rates, mean arterial pressures, ARDS, severe hypoxemia, or ICU and hospital mortality. Driving pressures significantly differed 14.75 ± 1.56 vs. 12.5 ± 1.2; p < 0.001. Ventilator-free days were similar, averaging 2.92 ±1.46 and 4.0 ±0.93 p=0.056.Conclusion: Ventilation with different levels of PEEP in ICU patients without ARDS at the onset of ventilation was associated with higher Po2/ Fio2 but not associated with decrease in ventilator free days nor lower in-hospital mortality nor a lower incidence of ARDS or pneumonia.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Eldabour et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e674d9b6db6435875ff51fhttps://doi.org/10.21608/ijma.2023.159435.1504
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper