Driving pressure-guided ventilation versus protective lung ventilation in ARDS patients: A prospective randomized controlled study | ||||
| Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia | ||||
| Volume 37, Issue 1, January 2021, Page 261-267 PDF (1.21 MB) | ||||
| DOI: TEJA-2021-0047 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Khaled M. Hamama; Sameh M. Fathy; Reda S. AbdAlrahman; Salah El-Din I. Alsherif; Sameh Abdelkhalik Ahmed | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| : Secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials found that driving pressure (DP) ≤ 14 cm HO may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of DP-guided ventilation compared to conventional protective lung ventilation (PLV) on clinical outcomes in ARDS patients. : In this prospective, controlled trial, 110 patients with ARDS were randomly assigned according to ventilatory strategy into conventional PLV group and DP-guided ventilation group (by maintaining DP value ≤ 14 cm HO). Clinical outcomes were incidence of mortality at 28 day (primary outcome), PaO/FiO, static compliance (C), organ(s) dysfunction, mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, and length of ICU stay. : Incidence of mortality at 28 day was reduced in DP-guided ventilation group compared to PLV group (20% vs. 5.45%); the hazard ratio was 0.26)95% CI: 0.09 to 0.73). The PaO/FiO, C and MV-free days were higher in in DP-guided ventilation group compared to PLV group. Organ dysfunction, duration of MV and length of ICU stay were significantly lower DP-guided ventilation group compared to PLV group. : In patients with ARDS, DP-guided ventilation showed improved survival, C and oxygenation and lower incidence of organ dysfunction, duration of MV and length of ICU stay compared to PLV. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Driving pressure guided ventilation; Protective lung ventilation; ARDS | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 62 PDF Download: 36 |
||||
