Analysis of compliance with lung protective mechanical ventilation strategy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Abstract

Objective: To assess the compliance with a lung protective ventilation strategy and to evaluate the relationship with prognosis in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: In the prospective multicenter cohort study (CHARDS), patients with ARDS undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation were enrolled to collect essential information, mechanical ventilation data, and prognostic data. Compliance was operationally defined as tidal volume ≤7 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW) or plateau pressure ≤30 cmH2O or driving pressure≤15 cmH2O. Tidal volume data collected 7 days prior to ventilation after ARDS diagnosis were categorized into four groups: standard group (Group A, 100% compliance), non-standard group (Group B, 50%-99% compliance, Group C,1%-49% compliance,and Group D,totally non-compliant). Plateau pressure and drive pressure measurements were recorded on the first day. Stepwise regression, specifically Logistics regression, was used to identify the factors influencing ICU survival. Results: A total of 449 ARDS patients with invasive mechanical ventilation were included; the proportion of mild, moderate, and severe patients was 71 (15.8%), 198 (44.1%) and 180 (40.1%), respectively. During the first 7 days, a total of 2880 tidal volume measurements were recorded with an average tidal volume of (6.89±1.93) ml/kg PBW. Of these measurements, 53.2% were found to be≤7 ml/kg PBW. The rates of compliance with lung protective mechanical ventilation were 29.8% (134/449), 24.5% (110/449), 23.6% (106/449), and 22% (99/449) in groups A, B, C, and D, respectively. In the standard group, the tidal volume for mild ARDS patients was 18.3%(13/71), while it was 81.7%(58/71)in the non-standard group. Similarly, in patients with moderate ARDS, the tidal volume was 25.8% (51/198) in the standard group, while it was 74.2% (147/198) in the non-standard group. Finally, in patients with severe ARDS, the tidal volume was 38.9% (70/180) in the standard group, while it was 61.1% (110/180) in the non-standard group. Notably, the compliance rate was higher in patients with moderate and severe ARDS in group A compared to patients with mild and moderate ARDS (18.3% vs. 25.8% vs. 38.9%, χ2=13.124, P=0.001). Plateau pressure was recorded in 221 patients, 95.9% (212/221) patients with plateau pressure≤30 cmH2O, and driving pressure was recorded in 207 patients, 77.8% (161/207) patients with a driving pressure ≤15 cmH2O.During the first 7 days, the mortality rate in the intensive care unit (ICU) was lower in the tidal volume standard group compared to the non-standard group (34.6% vs. 51.3%, χ2=10.464, P=0.001). In addition, the in-hospital mortality rate was lower in the standard group compared to the non-standard group (39.8% vs. 57%, χ2=11.016, P=0.001).The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the mortality rates of moderate and severe ARDS patients in the standard group were significantly lower than those in the non-standard group, both in the ICU and in the hospital (all P<0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality among mild ARDS patients (all P>0.05). Conclusions: There was high compliance with recommended lung protective mechanical ventilation strategies in ARDS patients, with slightly lower compliance in patients with mild ARDS, and high compliance rates for plateau and drive pressures. The tidal volume full compliance group had a lower mortality than the non-compliance group, and showed a similar trend in the moderate-to-severe ARDS subgroup, but there was no significant correlation between compliance and prognosis in patients with mild ARDS subgroup.