Post on 07-Apr-2018
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 1/12
Original articles
Surfactant administration in premature infants with RDS
Ismeta Kalkan, Suada Heljić, Amra Čengić, Verica Mišanović, Duško Anić, Fedžat Jonuzi, Hajrija Maksić
SIGNA VITAE 2007; 2(1): 21 - 24 61 Kb
Introduction Respiratory distress syndrome, (RDS, hyaline membrane disease, hyposurfactosis) is the most common disturbance in preterm
infants, appearing in approximately 60% of infants born before 30 weeks gestation. The main cause of the disease is inadequate
amounts of lung surfactant. Surfactant replacement reduces mortality and morbidity rates in premature infants, reduces duration of
ventilatory support, number of complications and medical costs. Surfactant therapy is not a substitute for an attempt to increase lung
maturity by delaying premature delivery or by using antenatal corticosteroids with the aim of preventing RDS (1-5).
Many studies of different regimes of surfactant therapy, related to time of application, have been undertaken during the 80s and 90s
(6,7,8).
Prophylactic surfactant replacement is given to preterm neonates at high risk of developing acute RDS in the delivery room, shortly
after resuscitation, as they start to breathe. Rescue therapy refers to treatment given after the diagnosis is established, 2 to 24
hours after birth (3,9-11). Most centers use rescue therapy as the mode of treatment. Each regime increases oxygenation of
ventilated preterm babies and reduces mortality and morbidity rates. This correlates with a significant reduction of medical costs
(12,13,14).
The aim of this study was to find an optimal regime of surfactant therapy, early vs. late treatment, and also to test the efficacy of
multiple doses vs. a single dose.
Patients and methods The investigation included 78 preterm infants with RDS, between 25 and 35 weeks gestation, treated with surfactant. All children
were hospitalized in the neonatal intensiv care unit (NICU) of the Pediatric Clinic, Clinical Centre Sarajevo during 2004 and 2005.
Surfactant was given to infants with radiological and clinical signs of RDS (tachypnea, cyanosis on room air) who required more
then 40% O2 in inhaled air. Surfactant was given after intubation, radiological confirmation of correct tube placement and
stabilization of vital functions. We used bovine surfactant - Survanta, 4ml/kg, which was administered according to standard
procedures. The following parameters were chosen on the ventilator: PIP (Positive Inspiratory Pressure) needed for the rising of the
chest but without overdistension; pressure at the end of expiration (PEEP) of 4 cm H2O; inspiratory time (IT) of 0,5 sec., frequency
of 30/min, start FiO2 1,0. Surfactant was given in one or more doses, in sterile conditions. The second dose was given 12 hours
after the first dose. Each dose was administered over 30s into each lung quadrant. If saturation fell below 85% we stopped with theinstillation. Treatment was continued after O2 saturation improved upon previous values. Effects of surfactant therapy were
assessed based on O2 saturation (determinated by pulse oximetry), gas analyses in arterial and capillary blood, the clinical
condition of the child and chest X-ray.
The group of investigated children was divided into subgroups, depending on the number of doses received, time of treatment
(early, late) and O2 requirement. Early treatment was related to patients who received the first dose within 6 hours of birth and late
treatment - six or more hours after birth. In regard to O2 requirements, our study group was divided into those who needed <
60%O2 in inhaled air and those who needed 60% O2 or more.
Results Comparing the results of early treatment (giving Surfactant within 6 hours of birth) and late treatment (six or more hours after birth)
we found that there is a significant difference between treated groups (p=0,005). In the study group which received surfactant within
6 hours of birth, 34 (out of 43) children survived, compared with 17 (out of 35) children who received surfactant 6 hours after birth or
later (table 1).
From the table 2, it can be seen that 53 (out of 78) children received one dose of surfactant comparable with 25 who received two
doses. 38 (out of 53) children, who received one dose survived, whereas, only 13 (out of 25) children who received two doses
survived. There is no significant difference between these two groups (p=0,088), although the mortality rate in children who received
two doses of surfactant was lower in comparison with the group which received one dose.
There is a significant difference (p= 0,015) between groups related to O2 requirement. In the group of children requiring O2
concentration less then 60% (n=22), as many as 19 (out of 22) survived in comparison with the group who required 60% or more
oxygen, at the time of surfactant replacement, where 32 (out of 56) children survived (table 3). Early treatment with surfactant at
lower O2 concentrations is associated with a lower mortality rate.
Table 1. Outcome of illness in relation to time of first surfactant dose
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 2/12
Hours
Survived Died
Total (%) c2 p
No (%) No (%)
0- 6 34 (79) 9 (21) 43 (100)
7,9 0,005 More then 6 17 (49) 18 (51) 35 (100)
Total 51 27 78 (100)
Table 2. Outcome of illness in relation to no. of doses
Number of doses
Survived Died
Total (%) c2 p
No (%) No (%)
1 dose 38 (72) 15 (28) 53 (100)
2,9 0,088 2 doses 13 (52) 12 (48) 25 (100)
Total 51 27 78 (100)
Table 3. Outcome of illness dependent upon O2 requirement
O2 concentration
Survived Died
Total (%) c2 p
No (%) No (%)
<0,6 19 (86) 3 (14) 22 (100)
6,0 0,015 0,6 or more 32 (57) 24 (43) 56 (100)
Total 51 27 78 (100)
Discussion Many clinical trials, carried out during the 80s and 90s, showed that surfactant use in preterm infants significantly reduces mortality
rate and complications within 28 days of birth (9,12). Our study, conducted on 78 preterm babies, showed that the overall
percentage of survival in children treated with surfactant was 65,38%.
Generally, surfactant is being given 6-24 hours after birth, as rescue therapy, when diagnosis of severe respiratory distress
syndrome is established. On the other hand, treatment in the delivery room is considered optimal, only if it's given after establishing
breathing and ventilation by positive pressure. In most of the studies, treatment of RDS with surfactant started between 2-4 hours
after birth or in the delivery room after stabilization of the baby, within 15 minutes of birth. In relation to timing of the first dose, two
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 3/12
strategies are used (7,15,16).
In our study, the first dose of surfactant was given as soon as diagnosis of severe respiratory distress syndrome was established:
within 6 hours from birth (early treatment) and after 6 hours (late treatment). In the study group which received surfactant within 6
hours of birth, 34 (out of 43) children survived, compared with 17 (out of 35) children who received surfactant 6 hours after birth or
later (p<0,005). Our results confirm the advantages of early treatment vs. late treatment. So, a reasonable recommendation is to
treat the infants as soon as clinical signs of developing respiratory distress appear. Waiting for the complete clinical picture to
develop before commencing treatment will minimize the effect of surfactant therapy (17,18). The treatment in the delivery room
should be reserved for the smallest infants with the highest risk for developing acute RDS and should be given by a person
experienced in neonatal resuscitation and surfactant administration (19).
In most cases, multiple doses of surfactant are being given, with the intent of avoiding functional inactivation of surfactant. Multiple
doses are believed to be useful because the effect of one dose is considered transient (10,20). When comparing multiple doses with
single doses, authors (7, 9,21) have found a reduction in the frequency of pneumothorax and mortality rate (within 28 days) with
multiple doses. It is not clear whether all sick infants benefit from multiple doses. Most children respond to treatment or re-treatment,
but some of them show little or no response. These infants can have other illnesses like pneumonia, pulmonary hypoplasia or
congenital heart disease. Structural immaturity of the lungs and birth asphyxia can reduce the response to surfactant therapy
(23,22).
In our study, there was no significant difference between groups treated with one and two or more doses (p<0,088), although the
mortality rate in children who received two doses of surfactant was lower compared with the group which received one dose. The
necessity for more doses should be individualized and considered based on clinical circumstances, such as in infants with residual
lung disease, so that the risk of complications like pneumothorax or prolonged ventilatory support can be avoided (24,25).
It seems that early surfactant treatment, when O2 requirement is lower, reduces the need for later treatment, O2 requirement andmechanical ventilation. Surfactant given early is more effective. The optimal time for administration is not defined. The current
recommendation is that a preterm baby with RDS needs surfactant replacement if he/she needs endotracheal intubation and if O2
requirement in inhaled air is more than 40% (26,27). In our study there is a significant difference (p<0,05) between groups related to
O2 requirement. In the group of children which required O2 concentrations less than 60% (n=22), as many as 19 (out of 22)
survived compared with 32 (out of 56) who required 60% or more oxygen concentration in inhaled air at the time of surfactant
replacement. Early treatment of surfactant with lower O2 requirements is associated with a lower mortality rate.
Our study confirmed the benefits of surfactant use in preterm babies with respiratory distress syndrome. We confirmed the
advantages of early treatment vs. late treatment, which is also connected with O2 requirement. In this study we could not confirm
the advantage of multiple over single doses. Therefore a reasonable recommendation is to treat infants as soon as clinical signs of
developing respiratory distress appear with individualized dosaging for each infant.
References 1. Jobe AH. Lung Development. In: Martin RJ, Fanaroff AA, eds. Neonatal-perinatal Medicine, Diseases of the Fetus and Infant. St
Louis: Mosby; 1997, pp 1019-1040.
2. Honrubia D, Stark AR. Respiratory Disorders. In: Cloherty JP, Eichenwald EC, Strak AR, eds. Manuale of Neonatal Care.
Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams&Wilkins; 1997, pp 341-378.
3. Gomella TL, Gleason BL. Hyalin Membrane Disease. In: Gomella TL, eds. Neonatology. Appleton and Lange; 1988/89, pp 381-
385.
4. Katz R. Function and Physiology of the Respiratory System. In: Furhman BP, Zimmerman JJ, eds. Pediatric critical care. St Louis:
Mosby; 1992, pp 386-399.
5. Fackler JC, Arnold JH, Nickols DG, Rogers MC. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. In: Rogers MC, eds. Textbook of Pediatric
Intensive Care, Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1996, pp 197-225.
6. Leahy A. Respiratory distress. In: Southall D, Coulter B, Ronald Ch, Nicholson S, Parke S, eds. International Child Health Care.
London: BMJ; 2002, pp 129-131.
7. Jobe AH. Pulmonary surfactant therapy. New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 328:861-8.
8. Enhoring G, Shennan A, Possmazer F. Prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome by tracheal instillation of surfactant.
Pediatrics 1985;76:145-53.
9. Schwartz RM, Luby AM, Scanlon JW, Kellogg RJ. Effect of surfactant on morbidity, mortality, and resource use in newborn infants
weighting 500 to 1500 g. New England Journal of Medicine 1944;330:1476-80.
10. Gortner LA. Multicenter randomized controlled trial of bovine surfactant for prevention of respiratory of distress syndrome. Lung
1990;168: 864-91.
11. Stevens TP, Blennov M, Soll RF. Early surfactant administration with brief ventilation vs. selective surfactant and continued
mechanical ventilation for preterm infants with or at risk for RDS. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;CD003063.
12. Jeffrey A, Timothy E. Hydrophobic Surfactant Proteins in Lung Function and Disease. New England Journal of Medicine
2002;347:2141-2148.
13. Soll RF, Blanco F. Natural surfactant extract versus synthetic surfactant for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Cochran
Database Syst Rev 2001;CD000144.
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 4/12
14. Hafner D, Germann PG, Hauschke D. Comparison of rST-C surfactant with natural and synthetic surfactants after late treatment
in a rat model of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine 1998;124(6):1083-90.
15. Soll RF. Appropriate surfactant usage in 1996. Eur J Pediatr 1996;2:S8-13.
16. Ehitelaw A. Controversies: synthetic or natural surfactant treatment for respiratory distress syndrome/The case for synthetic
surfactant. J Perinatal Med 1996;24(5):427-35.
17. Gortner L.A. Multicenter randomized controlled trial of bovine surfactant for prevention of respiratory of distress syndrome. Lung
1990;168:864-91.
18. Jobe A.H. Pulmonary surfactant therapy. New England Journal of Medicine 1993;328:861-8.
19. Speer CP, Halliday HL. Surfactant therapy in the newborn. Current Paediatrics 1994; 4:5-9.
20. Halliday HL. Where we are now with the prenatal steroids and postnatal surfactant. Biol Neonate 1996:69:186-7.
21. Mathay MA. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;334:1469-147.
22. Jobe AH. Pulmonary Surfactant Therapy. New England Medical Journal 1993;328:861-868.
23. Bard H, Belanger S, Fouron JC. Comparison of effects of 95% and 90% oxygen saturation in RDS. Prenatal and Neonatal
Medicine 2001;75 F94-6.
24. Ramanathan R, Rasmussen MR, Gerstmann DR, Finer N, Sekar K. A Randomized, Multicenter Masked Comparison Trial of
Poractant Alfa (Curosurf) versus Beractant (Survanta) in the Treatment of Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Preterm Infants.
American Journal of Perinatology 2004;21:3.
25. Vermont-Oxford Neonatal Network. A multicenter, randomized trial comparing synthetic surfactant with modified bovine
surfactant extract in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 1996;97:1.
26. Ainsworth SB, Beresford MW, Milligan DWA. Pumactant and Poractant alfa for treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in
neonates born at 25 to 29 weeks gestation. Lancet 2000;355:1387-139.27. Ramanathan R, Rasmussen MR. Curosurf and Survanta in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in pre term infants.
Biol Neonate 2002;81:36.
"ARDS" redirects here. For other uses, see ARD (disambiguation).
Adult respiratory distress syndrome
Classification and external resources
Chest x-ray of patient with ARDS
ICD-10 J80.
ICD-9 518.5, 518.82
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 5/12
DiseasesDB 892
MedlinePlus 000103
eMedicine med/70
MeSH D012128
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), also known as respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) or adult
respiratory distress syndrome (in contrast with IRDS) is a serious reaction to various forms of injuries to thelung.
ARDS is a severe lung disease caused by a variety of direct and indirect issues. It is characterized byinflammation of the
lung parenchyma leading to impaired gas exchange with concomitant systemic release ofinflammatory
mediators causing inflammation, hypoxemia and frequently resulting in multiple organ failure. This condition is often fatal,
usually requiring mechanical ventilation and admission to an intensive care unit. A less severe form is called acute lung
injury (ALI).
ARDS formerly most commonly signified adult respiratory distress syndrome to differentiate it from infant respiratory distress
syndrome in premature infants. However, as this type of pulmonary edema also occurs in children, ARDS has gradually
shifted to mean acute rather than adult . The differences with the typical infant syndrome remain.
Definition
[edit]Historical background
Acute respiratory distress syndrome was first described in 1967 by Ashbaugh et al .[1][2] Initially there was no definition,
resulting in controversy over incidenceand mortality. In 1988 an expanded definition was proposed which quantified
physiologic respiratory impairment.
In 1994 a new definition was recommended by the American-European Consensus Conference Committee.[1][3] It had two
advantages: first, it recognizes that severity of pulmonary injury varies, and secondly, it is simple to use.[4]
ARDS was defined as the ratio of arterial partial oxygen tension (PaO2) as fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) below 200
mmHg in the presence of bilateralinfiltrates on the chest x-ray. These infiltrates may appear similar to those of left ventricularfailure, but the cardiac silhouette appears normal in ARDS. Also, the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure is normal (less
than 18 mmHg) in ARDS, but raised in left ventricular failure.
A PaO2 /FiO2 ratio less than 300 mmHg with bilateral infiltrates indicates acute lung injury (ALI). Although formally considered
different from ARDS, ALI is usually just a precursor to ARDS.
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 6/12
Signs and symptoms
ARDS patients usually present with shortness of breath, tachypnea and occasionally with confusion resulting from low
oxygen levels.
ARDS can occur within 24 to 48 hours of an injury (trauma, burns, aspiration, massive blood transfusion, drug/alcohol
abuse) or an acute illness (infectious pneumonia, sepsis, acute pancreatitis).
[edit]Diagnosis
An arterial blood gas analysis and chest X-ray allow formal diagnosis by the aforementioned criteria. Although severe
hypoxemia is generally included, the appropriate threshold defining abnormal PaO2 has never been systematically studied.
Note though, that a severe oxygenation defect is not synonymous with ventilatory support. Any PaO2 below 100 (generally
saturation less than 100%) on a supplemental oxygen fraction of 50% meets criteria for ARDS. This can easily be achieved
by high flow oxygen supplementation without ventilatory support.
Any cardiogenic cause of pulmonary edema should be excluded. This can be done by placing a pulmonary artery
catheter for measuring the pulmonary artery wedge pressure. However, this is not necessary and is now rarely done as
abundant evidence has emerged demonstrating that the use of pulmonary artery catheters does not lead to improved patient
outcomes in critical illness including ARDS.
Plain chest X-rays are sufficient to document bilateral alveolar infiltrates in the majority of cases. While CT scanning leads to
more accurate images of the pulmonary parenchyma in ARDS, it has little utility in the clinical management of patients with
ARDS, and remains largely a research tool.
[edit]Pathophysiology
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 7/12
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 8/12
In sepsis or trauma-induced ARDS, infiltrates are usually more patchy and diffuse. The posterior and basal segments are
always more affected, but the distribution is even less homogeneous.
Loss of aeration also causes important changes in lung mechanical properties. These alterations are fundamental in the
process of inflammation amplification and progression to ARDS in mechanically ventilated patients.
Progression
If the underlying disease or injurious factor is not removed, the amount of inflammatory mediators released by the lungs in
ARDS may result in a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (or sepsis if there is lung infection).[1] The evolution
towards shock and/or multiple organ failure follows paths analogous to the pathophysiology of sepsis.
This adds up to the impaired oxygenation which is the central problem of ARDS, as well as to respiratory acidosis, which is
often caused by ventilation techniques such as permissive hypercapnia which attempt to limit ventilator-induced lung injury
in ARDS.
The result is a critical illness in which the 'endothelial disease' of severe sepsis / SIRS is worsened by the pulmonary
dysfunction, which further impairs oxygen delivery.
[edit]Treatment
[edit]General
Acute respiratory distress syndrome is usually treated with mechanical ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit. Ventilation is
usually delivered through oro-tracheal intubation, or tracheostomy whenever prolonged ventilation (≥2 weeks) is deemed
inevitable.
The possibilities of non-invasive ventilation are limited to the very early period of the disease or, better, to prevention in
individuals at risk for the development of the disease (atypical pneumonias, pulmonary contusion, major surgery patients).
Treatment of the underlying cause is imperative, as it tends to maintain the ARDS picture.
Appropriate antibiotic therapy must be administered as soon as microbiological culture results are
available. Empirical therapy may be appropriate if local microbiological surveillance is efficient. More than 60% ARDS
patients experience a (nosocomial) pulmonary infection either before or after the onset of lung injury.
The origin of infection, when surgically treatable, must be operated on. When sepsis is diagnosed, appropriate
local protocols should be enacted.
Commonly used supportive therapy includes particular techniques of mechanical ventilation and pharmacological agents
whose effectiveness with respect to the outcome has not yet been proven. It is now debated whether mechanical ventilation
is to be considered mere supportive therapy or actual treatment, since it may substantially affect survival.
Mechanical ventilation
Further information: Pressure Regulated Volume Control
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 9/12
The overall goal is to maintain acceptable gas exchange and to minimize adverse effects in its application. Three
parameters are used: PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure, to maintain maximal recruitment of alveolar units), mean
airway pressure (to promote recruitment and predictor of hemodynamic effects) and plateau pressure (best predictor of
alveolar overdistention).[9]
Conventional therapy aimed at tidal volumes (V t) of 12-15 ml/kg. Recent studies have shown that high tidal volumes can
overstretch alveoli resulting involutrauma (secondary lung injury). The ARDS Clinical Network, or ARDSNet, completed a
landmark trial that showed improved mortality when ventilated with a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg compared to the traditional 12
ml/kg. Low tidal volumes (V t) may cause hypercapnia and atelectasis[1] due to their inherent tendency to increase dead
space.
Low tidal volume ventilation was the primary independent variable associated with reduced mortality in the NIH-sponsored
ARDSnet trial of tidal volume in ARDS. Plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O was a secondary goal, and subsequent
analyses of the data from the ARDSnet trial (as well as other experimental data) demonstrate that there appears to be NO
safe upper limit to plateau pressure; that is, regardless of plateau pressure, patients fare better with low tidal volumes (see
Hager et al., American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2005).
[edit]APRV (Airway Pressure Release Ventilation) and ARDS / ALI
It is often said that no particular ventilator mode is known to improve mortality in ARDS. The landmark ARDSNet trial used a
volume controlled mode comparing delivered tidal volumes of 6 ml/kg with 12 ml/kg and showed decrease mortality with
smaller volumes and typically higher set rates. However, other modes of ventilation, like airway pressure release ventilation
(APRV), have not been directly compared to volume controlled ventilation.
Some practitioners favor APRV when treating ARDS. Well documented advantages to APRV ventilation include: decreased
airway pressures, decreased minute ventilation, decreased dead-space ventilation, promotion of spontaneous breathing,
almost 24 hour a day alveolar recruitment, decreased use of sedation, near elimination of neuromuscular blockade,
optimized arterial blood gas results, mechanical restoration of FRC (functional residual capacity), a positive effect on cardiac
output (due to the negative inflection from the elevated baseline with each spontaneous breath), increased organ and tissue
perfusion and potential for increased urine output secondary to increased renal perfusion.
A patient with ARDS, on average, spends between 8 and 11 days on a mechanical ventilator; APRV may reduce this time
significantly and conserve valuable resources.
A study is needed to evaluate whether APRV will reduce patient mortality when compared to the ARDSNet protocol.
There seems to be little political will, within the medical community, to address the need for this study, in spite of the
clinical successes seen with APRV.
Positive end-expiratory pressure
Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is used in mechanically-ventilated patients with ARDS to improve oxygenation. In
ARDS, three populations of alveoli can be distinguished. There are normal alveoli which are always inflated and engaging in
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 10/12
gas exchange, flooded alveoli which can never, under any ventilatory regime, be used for gas exchange, and atelectatic or
partially flooded alveoli that can be "recruited" to participate in gas exchange under certain ventilatory regimens. The
recruitable aveoli represent a continuous population, some of which can be recruited with minimal PEEP, and others which
can only be recruited with high levels of PEEP. An additional complication is that some or perhaps most alveoli can only be
opened with higher airway pressures than are needed to keep them open. Hence the justification for maneuvers where
PEEP is increased to very high levels for seconds to minutes before dropping the PEEP to a lower level. Finally, PEEP can
be harmful. High PEEP necessarily increases mean airway pressure and alveolar pressure. This in turn can damage normal
alveoli by overdistension resulting in DAD.
The 'best PEEP' used to be defined as 'some' cmH2O above the lower inflection point (LIP) in the sigmoidal pressure-volume
relationship curve of the lung. Recent research has shown that the LIP-point pressure is no better than any pressure above
it, as recruitment of collapsed alveoli, and more importantly the overdistension of aerated units, occur throughout the whole
inflation. Despite the awkwardness of most procedures used to trace the pressure-volume curve, it is still used by some to
define the minimum PEEP to be applied to their patients. Some of the newest ventilators have the ability to automatically
plot a pressure-volume curve. The possibility of having an 'instantaneous' tracing trigger might produce renewed interest in
this analysis.
PEEP may also be set empirically. Some authors suggest performing a 'recruiting maneuver' (i.e., a short time at a very high
continuous positive airway pressure, such as 50 cmH2O (4.9 kPa), to recruit, or open, collapsed units with a high distending
pressure) before restoring previous ventilation. The final PEEP level should be the one just before the drop in
PaO2 (or peripheral blood oxygen saturation) during a step-down trial.
Intrinsic PEEP (iPEEP), or auto-PEEP, first described by John Marini of St. Paul Regions Hospital, is a potentially
unrecognized contributor to PEEP in patients. When ventilating at high frequencies, its contribution can be substantial,
particularly in patients with obstructive lung disease. iPEEP has been measured in very few formal studies on ventilation in
ARDS patients, and its contribution is largely unknown. Its measurement is recommended in the treatment of ARDS
patients, especially when using high-frequency (oscillatory/jet) ventilation.
A compromise between the beneficial and adverse effects of PEEP is inevitable.
[edit]Prone position
Distribution of lung infiltrates in acute respiratory distress syndrome is non-uniform. Repositioning into the prone position
(face down) might improve oxygenation by relieving atelectasis and improving perfusion. However, although the hypoxemia
is overcome there seems to be no effect on overall survival.[1][10]
[edit]Fluid management
Several studies have shown that pulmonary function and outcome are better in patients that lost weight or pulmonary wedge
pressure was lowered by diuresisor fluid restriction.[1]
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 11/12
Corticosteroids
A Meduri et al. study has found significant improvement in ARDS using modest doses of corticosteroids. The initial regimen
consists of methylprednisolone2 mg/kg daily. After 3 –5 days a response must be apparent. In 1 –2 weeks the dose can be
tapered to methylprednisolone 0.5-1.0 mg daily. Patients with ARDS do not benefit from high-dose corticosteroids.[1][11] This
was a study involving a small number of patients in one center. A recent NIH-sponsored multicenter ARDSnet LAZARUS
study of corticosteroids for ARDS demonstrated that they are not efficacious in ARDS.
[edit]Nitric oxide
Inhaled nitric oxide (NO) potentially acts as selective pulmonary vasodilator. Rapid binding to hemoglobin prevents systemic
effects. It should increase perfusion of better ventilated areas. There are no large studies demonstrating positive results.
Therefore its use must be considered individually.
Almitrine bismesylate stimulates chemoreceptors in carotic and aortic bodies. It has been used to potentiate the effect of
NO, presumably by potentiating hypoxia-induced pulmonary vasoconstriction. In case of ARDS it is not known whether this
combination is useful.[1]
[edit]Surfactant therapy
To date no prospective controlled clinical trial has shown a significant mortality benefit of exogenous surfactant in adult
ARDS.[1]
[edit]Complications
Since ARDS is an extremely serious condition which requires invasive forms of therapy it is not without risk. Complications
to be considered are:[1]
Pulmonary: barotrauma (volutrauma), pulmonary embolism (PE), pulmonary fibrosis, ventilator-associated
pneumonia (VAP).
Gastrointestinal: hemorrhage (ulcer), dysmotility, pneumoperitoneum, bacterial translocation.
Cardiac: arrhythmias, myocardial dysfunction.
Renal: acute renal failure (ARF), positive fluid balance.
Mechanical: vascular injury, pneumothorax (by placing pulmonary artery catheter), tracheal injury/stenosis (result of
intubation and/or irritation by endotracheal tube.
Nutritional: malnutrition (catabolic state), electrolyte deficiency.
Epidemiology
The annual incidence of ARDS is 1.5 –13.5 people per 100,000 in the general
population.[citation needed ] Its incidence in the intensive care unit (ICU),mechanically
ventilated population is much higher. Brun-Buisson et al. (2004) reported a
prevalence of acute lung injury (ALI) (see below) of 16.1% percent in ventilated
8/4/2019 READING Oxygenation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reading-oxygenation 12/12
patients admitted for more than 4 hours. More than half these patients may develop
ARDS.
Mechanical
ventilation, sepsis, pneumonia, shock, aspiration, trauma (especially pulmonary
contusion), major surgery, massive transfusions, smoke inhalation, drug reaction
or overdose, fat emboli and reperfusion pulmonary edema after lung
transplantation or pulmonary embolectomy may all trigger ARDS. Pneumonia and
sepsis are the most common triggers, and pneumonia is present in up to 60% of
patients. Pneumonia and sepsis may be either causes or complications of ARDS.
Elevated abdominal pressure of any cause is also probably a risk factor for the
development of ARDS, particularly during mechanical ventilation.
The mortality rate varies from 30% to 85%.
[citation needed ]
Usually, randomizedcontrolled trials in the literature show lower death rates, both in control and
treatment patients. This is thought to be due to stricter enrollment criteria.
Observational studies generally report 50% –60% mortality.[citation needed ]
[edit]