Five steering committees examine the literature

Critical Care
Mechanical ventilation: One size fits all?

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a lifesaving intervention in the ICU, but it has been associated with numerous complications ranging from overuse of sedation, atelectasis, and baro or volutrauma.

After 2000, it became well known that using a low tidal volume (VT) strategy (6 mL/kg predicted body weight, PBW) in patients with ARDS produced lower mortality and more ventilator-free days (N Engl J Med. 2000 May 4;342[18]:1301). In addition, a meta-analysis in 2012 demonstrated a lower relative risk of new lung injury, mortality, and pulmonary infections with low VT in non-ARDS patients (Serpa et al. JAMA. 2012 Oct 24/31;308[16]:1651). However, the included studies varied widely in their use of VT (9-12 mL/kg), duration of MV, and in mixed settings (ICU or operating room).

Recently, a large randomized clinical trial compared the effect of low (4-6 mL/kg, PBW) vs intermediate (8-10 mL/kg, PBW) VT ventilation strategy in non-ARDS ICU patients. Interestingly, the study concluded that there is no significant difference in ventilator-free days (21 days in each group), median length ICU and hospital stay, ICU mortality rates, and 28- and 90-day mortality. Also, there was no difference in new-onset ARDS, severe atelectasis, sedation use, and delirium (JAMA. 2018; 320[18]:1872). This study suggests that in non-ARDS patients, MV should be individualized according to each patient’s clinical situation, the nature of the disease, and its effect on lung mechanics, especially in patients who cannot tolerate low tidal volumes.

Margaret A. Disselkamp, MD
Steering Committee Member

Mohammed A. Megri, MD
Fellow-in-Training Steering Committee Member