Protective ventilation of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
The majority of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require mechanical ventilation. This support provides time for the lungs to heal, but the adverse effects of mechanical ventilation significantly influence patient outcome. Traditionally, these were ascribed to mechanical effec...
Saved in:
Published in: | British journal of anaesthesia : BJA Vol. 92; no. 2; pp. 261 - 270 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Oxford
Elsevier Ltd
01-02-2004
Oxford University Press Oxford Publishing Limited (England) |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | The majority of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require mechanical ventilation. This support provides time for the lungs to heal, but the adverse effects of mechanical ventilation significantly influence patient outcome. Traditionally, these were ascribed to mechanical effects, such as haemodynamic compromise from decreased venous return or gross air leaks induced by large transpulmonary pressures. More recently, however, the ARDS Network study has established the clinical importance of lowering the tidal volume to limit overdistension of the lung when ventilating patients with ARDS. This study suggests that ventilator-associated lung injury (VALI) caused by overdistension of the lung contributes to the mortality of patients with ARDS. Moreover, the results from clinical and basic research have revealed more subtle types of VALI, including upregulation of the inflammatory response in the injured and overdistended lung. This not only damages the lung, but the overflow of inflammatory mediators into the systemic circulation may explain why most patients who die with ARDS succumb to multi-organ failure rather than respiratory failure. The results of these studies, the present understanding of the pathophysiology of VALI, and protective ventilatory strategies are reviewed. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ark:/67375/HXZ-6MVKV570-K local:aeh031 Corresponding author: Adult Intensive Care Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP, UK. E‐mail: m.griffiths@ic.ac.uk istex:314705FB97FE1899D2506BD3CFF15D572CDB0E97 ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Review-1 |
ISSN: | 0007-0912 1471-6771 |
DOI: | 10.1093/bja/aeh031 |