Does airway pressure release ventilation offer new hope for treating acute respiratory distress syndrome?

Mechanical ventilation(MV)is an essential life support method for patients with acute respiratory distress syn-drome(ARDS),which is one of the most common critical illnesses with high mortality in the intensive care unit(ICU).A lung-protective ventilation strategy based on low tidal volume(LTV)has been recommended since a few years;however,as this did not result in a significant decrease of ARDS-related mortality,a more optimal venti-lation mode was required.Airway pressure release ventilation(APRV)is an old method defined as a continuous positive airway pressure(CPAP)with a brief intermittent release phase based on the open lung concept;it also perfectly fits the ARDS treatment principle.Despite this,APRV has not been widely used in the past,rather only as a rescue measure for ARDS patients who are difficult to oxygenate.Over recent years,with an increased under-standing of the pathophysiology of ARDS,APRV has been reproposed to improve patient prognosis.Nevertheless,this mode is still not routinely used in ARDS patients given its vague definition and complexity.Consequently,in this paper,we summarize the studies that used APRV in ARDS,including adults,children,and animals,to illustrate the settings of parameters,effectiveness in the population,safety(especially in children),incidence,and mechanism of ventilator-induced lung injury(VILI)and effects on extrapulmonary organs.Finally,we found that APRV is likely associated with improvement in ARDS outcomes,and does not increase injury to the lungs and other organs,thereby indicating that personalized APRV settings may be the new hope for ARDS treatment.

Airway pressure release ventilation forin-vivodonor lung management and lung transplant outcomes

Background:Airway pressure release ventilation(APRV)can be used for cadaveric donor lung recruitment.APRV elevates PaO_(2)in donor lungs;however,reported outcomes in recipients with APRVmanaged donor lungs are limited.Methods:We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent lung transplantation(LTx)from 2012 to 2013 and divided them into two groups based on mode of ventilation used during donor management and organ extraction(A:non-APRV;B:APRV).Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox regression were used for analysis.Results:We found 126 LTx recipients(LTxRs);9 were excluded for use of portable ventilation perfusion systems.Of the remaining 117 patients,81(69%)were in Group A;36(31%)were in Group B.Preoperative LTxR characteristics(age,sex,lung allocation score,endstage lung disease type)were comparable between groups.Donors for Group B were older(P=0.03)and had higher body mass index(BMI)(P<0.001),higher incidence of death from chest trauma(P=0.008),longer ventilation duration after brain death(P<0.001),and higher pre-explant PaO_(2)/FiO_(2)ratios(P<0.001).Post-LTx duration of mechanical ventilation,hospital stay,and median survival were similar in both groups.Risk of death was comparable between the two groups at the end of follow-up(HR=1.42;95%CI:0.57-3.56;P=0.45).Conclusions:APRV is a safe and effective pre-LTx donor lung management strategy.Short-and long-term survival outcomes were comparable in LTx recipients,irrespective of donor ventilation mode.APRV may help recruit lungs from older donors with higher BMI who die from chest trauma and have anticipated longer ventilation duration.