scholarly journals Protective PEEP and Lung Capacity May Be Determined by a Rapid PEEP-step Procedure

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Grivans ◽  
Ola Stenqvist
Keyword(s):  
Tidal Volume ◽  
Peep Level ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Esophageal Pressure ◽  
Plateau Pressure ◽  
Lung Compliance ◽  
Driving Pressure ◽  
High Peep ◽  
Step Procedure ◽  
Protective Ventilation Strategy

Abstract Background: A protective ventilation strategy should be based on assessment of lung mechanics and transpulmonary pressure, as this is the pressure that directly “hits” the lung. Esophageal pressure has been used for this purpose but has not gained widespread clinical acceptance. Instead, respiratory system mechanics and airway driving pressure have been used as surrogate measures. We have shown that the lung P/V curve coincides with the line connecting the end-expiratory airway P/V points of a PEEP trial. Consequently, transpulmonary pressure increases as much as PEEP is increased. If the change in end-expiratory lung volume (ΔEELV) is determined, lung compliance (CL) can be determined as ΔEELV/ΔPEEP and ΔPTP as tidal volume times ΔPEEP/ΔEELV. Methods: In ten patients with acute respiratory failure, ΔEELV was measured during each 4 cmH2O PEEP-step from 0 to 16 cmH2O and CL for each PEEP interval calculated as ΔEELV/ΔPEEP giving a lung P/V curve for the whole PEEP trial. Results: Lung P/V curves showed a marked individual variation with an overall lung compliance of 43–143 ml/cmH2O (total inspiratory volume divided by end-inspiratory transpulmonary plateau pressure at PEEP 16 cmH2O). The two patients with lowest lung compliance were non-responders to PEEP with decreasing lung compliance at high PEEP levels, indicating over-distension. Patients with higher lung compliance had a positive response to PEEP with successively higher lung compliance when increasing PEEP. A two-step PEEP procedure starting from a clinical PEEP level of 8 cmH2O gave almost identical lung P/V curves as the four PEEP-step procedure. The ratio of airway driving pressure (ΔPAW) to transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPTP/ΔPAW) varied between patients and changed with PEEP, reducing the value of ΔPAW as surrogate for ΔPTP in individual patients. Conclusion: Separation of lung and chest wall mechanics can be achieved without esophageal pressure measurements if ΔEELV is determined when PEEP is changed . Only a two-step PEEP procedure is required for obtaining a lung P/V curve from baseline clinical PEEP to end-inspiration at the highest PEEP level, which can be used to determine the PEEP level where transpulmonary driving pressure is lowest and possibly least injurious for any given tidal volume.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04484727. Registered 24 July 2020 – Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04484727?term=Lindgren%2C+Sophie&cntry=SE&draw=2&rank=1

scholarly journals A Protective Tidal Volume Adapted To Lung Compliance and The PEEP Level With Lowest Transpulmonary Driving Pressure May Be Determined By a Rapid PEEP-Step Procedure

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Grivans ◽  
Ola Stenqvist
Keyword(s):  
Body Weight ◽  
Tidal Volume ◽  
Peep Level ◽  
Ideal Body Weight ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Esophageal Pressure ◽  
Lung Compliance ◽  
Driving Pressure ◽  
Step Procedure ◽  
Ideal Body

Abstract Background: A protective ventilation strategy should be based on lung mechanics and transpulmonary pressure, as this is the pressure that directly “hits” the lung. Esophageal pressure has been used for this purpose but has not gained widespread clinical acceptance. Instead, respiratory system mechanics and airway driving pressure have been used as surrogate measures. We have shown that the lung pressure/volume (P/V) curve coincides with the line connecting the end-expiratory airway P/V points of a PEEP trial. Consequently, transpulmonary pressure increases as much as PEEP and lung compliance (CL) can be determined as ΔEELV/ΔPEEP and transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPTP) as tidal volume divided by ΔEELV/ΔPEEP.Methods: In ten patients with acute respiratory failure, ΔEELV was measured during each 4 cmH2O PEEP-step from 0 to 16 cmH2O and CL for each PEEP interval calculated as ΔEELV/ΔPEEP giving a lung P/V curve for the whole PEEP trial. Similarily, a lung P/V curve was obtained also for the PEEP levels 8, 12, and 16 cmH2O only.Results: A two-step PEEP procedure starting from a clinical PEEP level of 8 cmH2O gave almost identical lung P/V curves as the four PEEP-step procedure. The lung P/V curves showed a marked individual variation with an over-all CL (CLoa ) 50-137 ml/cmH2O. ΔPTP of a tidal volume of 6-7 ml/kg ideal body weight divided by CLoa ranged from 8.6-2.8 cmH2O, while ΔPTP of tidal volume adapted to CLoa ranged from 3.3 in the patient with lowest to 4.3 cmH 2 O in the patient with highest CLoa . The ratio of airway driving pressure to transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPTP/ΔPAW) varied between patients and changed with PEEP, reducing the value of ΔPAW as surrogate for ΔPTP in individual patients.Conclusion: Only a two PEEP-step procedure is required for obtaining a lung P/V curve from baseline clinical PEEP to end-inspiration at the highest PEEP level, i.e. without esophageal pressure measurements. The best-fit equation for the curve can be used to determine a tidal volume related to lung compliance instead of ideal body weight and the PEEP level where transpulmonary driving pressure is lowest and possibly least injurious for any given tidal volume.

Biological Impact of Transpulmonary Driving Pressure in Experimental Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2015 ◽  
Vol 123 (2) ◽  
pp. 423-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia S. Samary ◽  
Raquel S. Santos ◽  
Cíntia L. Santos ◽  
Nathane S. Felix ◽  
Maira Bentes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Lung Injury ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Peep Level ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Plateau Pressure ◽  
Driving Pressure ◽  
Ventilator Induced Lung Injury

Abstract Background: Ventilator-induced lung injury has been attributed to the interaction of several factors: tidal volume (VT), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), transpulmonary driving pressure (difference between transpulmonary pressure at end-inspiration and end-expiration, ΔP,L), and respiratory system plateau pressure (Pplat,rs). Methods: Forty-eight Wistar rats received Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide intratracheally. After 24 h, animals were randomized into combinations of VT and PEEP, yielding three different ΔP,L levels: ΔP,LLOW (VT = 6 ml/kg, PEEP = 3 cm H2O); ΔP,LMEAN (VT = 13 ml/kg, PEEP = 3 cm H2O or VT = 6 ml/kg, PEEP = 9.5 cm H2O); and ΔP,LHIGH (VT = 22 ml/kg, PEEP = 3 cm H2O or VT = 6 ml/kg, PEEP = 11 cm H2O). In other groups, at low VT, PEEP was adjusted to obtain a Pplat,rs similar to that achieved with ΔP,LMEAN and ΔP,LHIGH at high VT. Results: At ΔP,LLOW, expressions of interleukin (IL)-6, receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE), and amphiregulin were reduced, despite morphometric evidence of alveolar collapse. At ΔP,LHIGH (VT = 6 ml/kg and PEEP = 11 cm H2O), lungs were fully open and IL-6 and RAGE were reduced compared with ΔP,LMEAN (27.4 ± 12.9 vs. 41.6 ± 14.1 and 0.6 ± 0.2 vs. 1.4 ± 0.3, respectively), despite increased hyperinflation and amphiregulin expression. At ΔP,LMEAN (VT = 6 ml/kg and PEEP = 9.5 cm H2O), when PEEP was not high enough to keep lungs open, IL-6, RAGE, and amphiregulin expression increased compared with ΔP,LLOW (41.6 ± 14.1 vs. 9.0 ± 9.8, 1.4 ± 0.3 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2, and 6.7 ± 0.8 vs. 2.2 ± 1.0, respectively). At Pplat,rs similar to that achieved with ΔP,LMEAN and ΔP,LHIGH, higher VT and lower PEEP reduced IL-6 and RAGE expression. Conclusion: In the acute respiratory distress syndrome model used in this experiment, two strategies minimized ventilator-induced lung injury: (1) low VT and PEEP, yielding low ΔP,L and Pplat,rs; and (2) low VT associated with a PEEP level sufficient to keep the lungs open.

scholarly journals Goal-Directed Mechanical Ventilation: Are We Aiming at the Right Goals? A Proposal for an Alternative Approach Aiming at Optimal Lung Compliance, Guided by Esophageal Pressure in Acute Respiratory Failure

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arie Soroksky ◽  
Antonio Esquinas
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Chest Wall ◽  
Respiratory System ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Esophageal Pressure ◽  
Plateau Pressure ◽  
Lung Compliance ◽  
Inspiratory Pressure

Patients with acute respiratory failure and decreased respiratory system compliance due to ARDS frequently present a formidable challenge. These patients are often subjected to high inspiratory pressure, and in severe cases in order to improve oxygenation and preserve life, we may need to resort to unconventional measures. The currently accepted ARDSNet guidelines are characterized by a generalized approach in which an algorithm for PEEP application and limited plateau pressure are applied to all mechanically ventilated patients. These guidelines do not make any distinction between patients, who may have different chest wall mechanics with diverse pathologies and different mechanical properties of their respiratory system. The ability of assessing pleural pressure by measuring esophageal pressure allows us to partition the respiratory system into its main components of lungs and chest wall. Thus, identifying the dominant factor affecting respiratory system may better direct and optimize mechanical ventilation. Instead of limiting inspiratory pressure by plateau pressure, PEEP and inspiratory pressure adjustment would be individualized specifically for each patient's lung compliance as indicated by transpulmonary pressure. The main goal of this approach is to specifically target transpulmonary pressure instead of plateau pressure, and therefore achieve the best lung compliance with the least transpulmonary pressure possible.

scholarly journals Effects of inspiratory flow on lung stress, pendelluft, and ventilation heterogeneity in ARDS: a physiological study

Critical Care ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Santini ◽  
Tommaso Mauri ◽  
Francesca Dalla Corte ◽  
Elena Spinelli ◽  
Antonio Pesenti
Keyword(s):  
Peep Level ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Plateau Pressure ◽  
Inspiratory Flow ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Ventilation Heterogeneity ◽  
Volume Controlled ◽  
Lung Stress

Abstract Background High inspiratory flow might damage the lungs by mechanisms not fully understood yet. We hypothesized that increasing inspiratory flow would increase lung stress, ventilation heterogeneity, and pendelluft in ARDS patients undergoing volume-controlled ventilation with constant tidal volume and that higher PEEP levels would reduce this phenomenon. Methods Ten ARDS patients were studied during protective volume-controlled ventilation. Three inspiratory flows (400, 800, and 1200 ml/s) and two PEEP levels (5 and 15 cmH2O) were applied in random order to each patient. Airway and esophageal pressures were recorded, end-inspiratory and end-expiratory holds were performed, and ventilation distribution was measured with electrical impedance tomography. Peak and plateau airway and transpulmonary pressures were recorded, together with the airway and transpulmonary pressure corresponding to the first point of zero end-inspiratory flow (P1). Ventilation heterogeneity was measured by the EIT-based global inhomogeneity (GI) index. Pendelluft was measured as the absolute difference between pixel-level inflation measured at plateau pressure minus P1. Results Plateau airway and transpulmonary pressure was not affected by inspiratory flow, while P1 increased at increasing inspiratory flow. The difference between P1 and plateau pressure was higher at higher flows at both PEEP levels (p < 0.001). While higher PEEP reduced heterogeneity of ventilation, higher inspiratory flow increased GI (p = 0.05), irrespective of the PEEP level. Finally, gas volume undergoing pendelluft was larger at higher inspiratory flow (p < 0.001), while PEEP had no effect. Conclusions The present exploratory analysis suggests that higher inspiratory flow increases additional inspiratory pressure, heterogeneity of ventilation, and pendelluft while PEEP has negligible effects on these flow-dependent phenomena. The clinical significance of these findings needs to be further clarified.

scholarly journals Comparison of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure versus Tidal Volume-Induced Ventilator-Driven Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver in Robotic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 3921
Author(s):  
Kangha Jung ◽  
Sojin Kim ◽  
Byung Jun Kim ◽  
MiHye Park
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Tidal Volume ◽  
Supine Position ◽  
Recruitment Maneuver ◽  
Lung Compliance ◽  
Robotic Prostatectomy ◽  
Alveolar Recruitment ◽  
Driving Pressure ◽  
Positive End Expiratory Pressure ◽  
Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver

Background: We evaluated the pulmonary effects of two ventilator-driven alveolar recruitment maneuver (ARM) methods during laparoscopic surgery. Methods: Sixty-four patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy were randomized into two groups: incrementally increasing positive end-expiratory pressure in a stepwise manner (PEEP group) versus tidal volume (VT group). We performed each ARM after induction of anesthesia in the supine position (T1), after pneumoperitoneum in the Trendelenburg position (T2), and after peritoneum desufflation in the supine position (T3). The primary outcome was change in end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) before and 5 min after ARM at T3, measured by electrical impedance tomography. Results: The PEEP group showed significantly higher increasing EELI 5 min after ARM than the VT group at T1 and T3 (median [IQR] 460 [180,800] vs. 200 [80,315], p = 0.002 and 280 [170,420] vs. 95 [55,175], p = 0.004, respectively; PEEP group vs. VT group). The PEEP group showed significantly higher lung compliance and lower driving pressure at T1 and T3. However, there was no significant difference in EELI change, lung compliance, or driving pressure after ARM at T2. Conclusions: The ventilator-driven ARM by the increasing PEEP method led to greater improvements in lung compliance at the end of laparoscopic surgery than the increasing VT method.

Effects of Prone Positioning on Transpulmonary Pressures and End-expiratory Volumes in Patients without Lung Disease

2018 ◽  
Vol 128 (6) ◽  
pp. 1187-1192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abirami Kumaresan ◽  
Robert Gerber ◽  
Ariel Mueller ◽  
Stephen H. Loring ◽  
Daniel Talmor
Keyword(s):  
Chest Wall ◽  
Prone Position ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Esophageal Pressure ◽  
Driving Pressure ◽  
Prone Positioning ◽  
Volume Increase ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Chest Wall Elastance

Abstract Background The effects of prone positioning on esophageal pressures have not been investigated in mechanically ventilated patients. Our objective was to characterize effects of prone positioning on esophageal pressures, transpulmonary pressure, and lung volume, thereby assessing the potential utility of esophageal pressure measurements in setting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in prone patients. Methods We studied 16 patients undergoing spine surgery during general anesthesia and neuromuscular blockade. We measured airway pressure, esophageal pressures, airflow, and volume, and calculated the expiratory reserve volume and the elastances of the lung and chest wall in supine and prone positions. Results Esophageal pressures at end expiration with 0 cm H2O PEEP decreased from supine to prone by 5.64 cm H2O (95% CI, 3.37 to 7.90; P &lt; 0.0001). Expiratory reserve volume measured at relaxation volume increased from supine to prone by 0.15 l (interquartile range, 0.25, 0.10; P = 0.003). Chest wall elastance increased from supine to prone by 7.32 (95% CI, 4.77 to 9.87) cm H2O/l at PEEP 0 (P &lt; 0.0001) and 6.66 cm H2O/l (95% CI, 3.91 to 9.41) at PEEP 7 (P = 0.0002). Median driving pressure, the change in airway pressure from end expiration to end-inspiratory plateau, increased in the prone position at PEEP 0 (3.70 cm H2O; 95% CI, 1.74 to 5.66; P = 0.001) and PEEP 7 (3.90 cm H2O; 95% CI, 2.72 to 5.09; P &lt; 0.0001). Conclusions End-expiratory esophageal pressure decreases, and end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure and expiratory reserve volume increase, when patients are moved from supine to prone position. Mean respiratory system driving pressure increases in the prone position due to increased chest wall elastance. The increase in end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure and expiratory reserve volume may be one mechanism for the observed clinical benefit with prone positioning.

Rapidly adapting receptors monitor lung compliance in spontaneously breathing dogs

1990 ◽  
Vol 68 (5) ◽  
pp. 1997-2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. E. Pisarri ◽  
A. Jonzon ◽  
J. C. Coleridge ◽  
H. M. Coleridge
Keyword(s):  
Tidal Volume ◽  
Spontaneous Breathing ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Lung Compliance ◽  
Vagus Nerves ◽  
Concomitant Increase ◽  
Inflatable Cuff ◽  
Lung Expansion ◽  
Dynamic Lung Compliance ◽  
Spontaneously Breathing

We examined the ability of rapidly adapting receptors (RARs) to monitor changes in dynamic lung compliance (Cdyn) in anesthetized spontaneously breathing dogs by recording RAR impulses from the vagus nerves. We decreased Cdyn in steps through the physiological range by briefly restricting lung expansion with an inflatable cuff around the chest and recording the response after deflating the cuff; we restored Cdyn to control by hyperinflating the lungs. Of 45 RARs, 34 were stimulated by a 40 +/- 2% reduction in Cdyn, their inspiratory discharge increasing on average more than threefold. Two-thirds of responsive RARs were stimulated by less than or equal to 20% reductions in Cdyn; in most, firing increased proportionately with lung stiffness (1/Cdyn) as Cdyn was decreased further. Stimulation by reduced Cdyn was not simply a function of the concomitant increase in transpulmonary pressure, because similar increases in pressure produced by increasing tidal volume produced smaller increases in firing. RAR stimulation was unaffected by atropine and, hence, was not dependent on neurally mediated changes in bronchomotor tone. Our results indicate that during spontaneous breathing RARs provide a signal inversely proportional to Cdyn.

Response of slowly adapting pulmonary stretch receptors to reduced lung compliance

1991 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 425-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Yu ◽  
T. E. Pisarri ◽  
J. C. Coleridge ◽  
H. M. Coleridge
Keyword(s):  
Steady State ◽  
Tidal Volume ◽  
Time Constant ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Lung Compliance ◽  
Steady State Response ◽  
Positive End Expiratory Pressure ◽  
State Response ◽  
Stretch Receptors ◽  
Pulmonary Stretch Receptors

We examined the steady-state response of slowly adapting pulmonary stretch receptors (SAPSRs) to reduced lung compliance in open-chest cats with lungs ventilated at eupneic rate and tidal volume (VT) and with a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 3–4 cmH2O. Transient removal of PEEP decreased compliance by approximately 30% and increased transpulmonary pressure (Ptp) by 1–2.5 cmH2O. Reduction of compliance significantly decreased SAPSR discharge in deflation and caused a small increase in discharge at the peak of inflation; it had little effect on discharge averaged over the ventilatory cycle. Increasing VT to produce a comparable increase in Ptp significantly increased peak discharge. Thus unlike rapidly adapting receptors, whose discharge is increased more effectively by reduced compliance than by increased VT, SAPSRs are stimulated by increased VT but not by reduced compliance. We speculate that the most consistent effect of reduced compliance on SAPSRs (the decrease in deflation discharge) was due to the decreased time constant for deflation in the stiffer lung. This alteration in firing may contribute to the tachypnea evoked as the lungs become stiffer.

scholarly journals The Esophageal Pressure-Guided Ventilation 2 (EPVent2) trial protocol: a multicentre, randomised clinical trial of mechanical ventilation guided by transpulmonary pressure

BMJ Open ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (10) ◽  
pp. e006356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Fish ◽  
Victor Novack ◽  
Valerie M Banner-Goodspeed ◽  
Todd Sarge ◽  
Stephen Loring ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Esophageal Pressure ◽  
Public Access ◽  
High Peep ◽  
Lower Tidal Volume ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionOptimal ventilator management for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains uncertain. Lower tidal volume ventilation appears to be beneficial, but optimal management of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) remains unclear. The Esophageal Pressure-Guided Ventilation 2 Trial (EPVent2) aims to examine the impact of mechanical ventilation directed at maintaining a positive transpulmonary pressure (PTP) in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.Methods and analysisEPVent2 is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, phase II clinical trial testing the hypothesis that the use of a PTP-guided ventilation strategy will lead to improvement in composite outcomes of mortality and time off the ventilator at 28 days as compared with a high-PEEP control. This study will enrol 200 study participants from 11 hospitals across North America. The trial will utilise a primary composite end point that incorporates death and days off the ventilator at 28 days to test the primary hypothesis that adjusting ventilator pressure to achieve positive PTP values will result in improved mortality and ventilator-free days.Ethics and disseminationSafety oversight will be under the direction of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). Approval of the protocol was obtained from the DSMB prior to enrolling the first study participant. Approvals of the protocol as well as informed consent documents were also obtained from the Institutional Review Board of each participating institution prior to enrolling study participants at each respective site. The findings of this investigation, as well as associated ancillary studies, will be disseminated in the form of oral and abstract presentations at major national and international medical specialty meetings. The primary objective and other significant findings will also be presented in manuscript form. All final, published manuscripts resulting from this protocol will be submitted to PubMed Central in accordance with the National Institute of Health Public Access Policy.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01681225.

scholarly journals Advanced Respiratory Monitoring in COVID-19 Patients: Use Less PEEP!

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisanne Roesthuis ◽  
Maarten van den Berg ◽  
Hans van der Hoeven
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Dead Space ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Mechanics ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Lung Compliance ◽  
High Peep ◽  
Dead Space Ventilation

With the emergence of COVID-19 we are confronted with a new clinical picture of acute respiratory distress syndrome in the intensive care unit. In the majority of patients, the respiratory mechanics are very different from the &ldquo;normal&rdquo; ARDS patient. We measured transpulmonary pressure and dead space ventilation to assess the effects of high and low PEEP levels on lung compliance and ventilation-perfusion mismatching. Advanced respiratory mechanics were assessed in 14 patients. Compared to ARDS patients, lung compliance was relatively high (61 &plusmn; 5 mL/cmH2O). COVID-19 patients had high dead space ventilation and gas exchange impairment (Bohr 52 &plusmn; 3%; Enghoff modification 67 &plusmn; 2%; ventilatory ratio 2.24 &plusmn; 0.23). we show that higher PEEP levels decrease lung compliance and in most cases increase dead space ventilation, indicating that high PEEP levels probably cause hyperinflation in patients with COVID-19. We suggest using prone position for an extended period of time, and apply lower PEEP levels as much as possible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document