Minimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may be “best peep.”

1988 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 278
Critical Care ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
François Perier ◽  
Samuel Tuffet ◽  
Tommaso Maraffi ◽  
Glasiele Alcala ◽  
Marcus Victor ◽  
...  

Abstract Rationale Patients with coronavirus disease-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) could have a specific physiological phenotype as compared with those affected by ARDS from other causes (NC-ARDS). Objectives To describe the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on respiratory mechanics in C-ARDS patients in supine and prone position, and as compared to NC-ARDS. The primary endpoint was the best PEEP defined as the smallest sum of hyperdistension and collapse. Methods Seventeen patients with moderate-to-severe C-ARDS were monitored by electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and evaluated during PEEP titration in supine (n = 17) and prone (n = 14) position and compared with 13 NC-ARDS patients investigated by EIT in our department before the COVID-19 pandemic. Results As compared with NC-ARDS, C-ARDS exhibited a higher median best PEEP (defined using EIT as the smallest sum of hyperdistension and collapse, 12 [9, 12] vs. 9 [6, 9] cmH2O, p < 0.01), more collapse at low PEEP, and less hyperdistension at high PEEP. The median value of the best PEEP was similar in C-ARDS in supine and prone position: 12 [9, 12] vs. 12 [10, 15] cmH2O, p = 0.59. The response to PEEP was also similar in C-ARDS patients with higher vs. lower respiratory system compliance. Conclusion An intermediate PEEP level seems appropriate in half of our C-ARDS patients. There is no solid evidence that compliance at low PEEP could predict the response to PEEP.


CHEST Journal ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 1020-1025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilbert C. Carroll ◽  
Kenneth J. Tuman ◽  
Berton Braverman ◽  
William G. Logos ◽  
Norman Wool ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document