ライフサイエンスコーパス: PEEP

1 PEEP did not have a large enough effect in univariate an

2 PEEP stabilized alveoli and significantly reduced histol

3 PEEP was higher in patients at risk of ARDS compared wit

4 PEEP-sensitive RTN neurons expressed Phox2b.

5 apsed alveoli was significantly higher for 0 PEEP compared with 4 and 7 PEEP groups.

6 cantly elevated in animals ventilated with 0 PEEP compared with 4 PEEP.

7 8-12 cm H20, Spearman's rho 0.85, p < 0.001; PEEP >12 cm H2O, Spearman's rho 0.85, p < 0.001).

8 (<8 cm H2O, Spearman's rho 0.87, p < 0.001; PEEP 8-12 cm H20, Spearman's rho 0.85, p < 0.001; PEEP >

9 andard ventilation plus (1) 5 PEEP or (2) 10 PEEP and alveolar number and stability were again measur

10 Although both 5 PEEP and 10 PEEP after recruitment demonstrated improved oxygenation

11 oved oxygenation, alveoli ventilated with 10 PEEP were stable, whereas alveoli ventilated with 5 PEEP

12 imals ventilated with 0 PEEP compared with 4 PEEP.

13 groups with standard ventilation plus (1) 5 PEEP or (2) 10 PEEP and alveolar number and stability we

14 Although both 5 PEEP and 10 PEEP after recruitment demonstrated improved

15 re stable, whereas alveoli ventilated with 5 PEEP showed significant instability.

16 ntly higher for 0 PEEP compared with 4 and 7 PEEP groups.

17 P(flex) was determined in 19 (68%), a PEEP(best) in 24 (86%), and both values in 17 (61%).

18 stablished by a PaO2/FIO2 of 150 mm Hg and a PEEP of 10 cm H2O demonstrated that ARDS is not a homoge

19 such measurements, would enable us to find a PEEP value that could maintain oxygenation while prevent

20 One method for PEEP titration is a PEEP/FiO2 table that prioritizes support for arterial ox

21 ical impedance tomography (EIT) to monitor a PEEP trial and to derive from EIT the best compromise PE

22 vel of PEEP group (n = 989), consisting of a PEEP level of 12 cm H2O with alveolar recruitment maneuv

23 vel of PEEP group (n = 987), consisting of a PEEP level of 4 cm H2O.

24 O (n = 476), or higher PEEP, consisting of a PEEP level of 8 cm H2O (n = 493).

25 R ratio of 75% (mean [SEM], 0.05 [0.03]) and PEEP of 16 cm H2O (mean [SEM], 0.09 [0.08]), but an APRV

26 siotherapy, Pleural Effusion assessment, and PEEP optimisation.

27 CPAP and PEEP are useful not only to treat hypoxia and atelectasi

28 Algorithms for the application of CPAP and PEEP to patients both at risk and not at risk of acute l

29 CPAP and PEEP use are important as we are increasingly challenged

30 ed by ventilation for 15 mins where FIO2 and PEEP were set based on the ARDSNet FIO2/PEEP.

31 In patients who had both P(flex) and PEEP(best) determined, there was a close concordance (+/

32 When the values of P(flex) and PEEP(best) were interpreted by two additional investigat

33 then were used to determine both P(flex) and PEEP(best), and the results were compared.

34 reshold values for PaO2/FIO2 (150 mm Hg) and PEEP (10 cm H2O) at ARDS onset and at 24 hours, we assig

35 roup were ventilated with Vt of 10 cc/kg and PEEP of 0.5 cm H2O.

36 LRM and PEEP decreased pulmonary vascular resistance and normali

37 trategy with a lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system

38 routine use of lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration in these patients.

39 ilation (11.1 [3.2] vs 9.6 [2.4] L/min), and PEEP (12.4 [3.7] vs 10.8 [2.6] cm H(2)O).

40 Gradual aeration with tidal ventilation and PEEP produced the least lung injury.

41 cal ventilation with lower tidal volumes and PEEP reduces compounded postoperative complications afte

42 ation in normal rats for 6 hours with Vt and PEEP settings similar to those of surgery patients cause

43 spiratory rate, 20 bpm), and 3) near-apneic (PEEP, 10 cm H(2)O; driving pressure, 10 cm H(2)O; respir

44 Among the ventilator strategies applied, PEEP at 12 cm H2O (elevated positive end-expiratory pres

45 and reduced tidal hyperinflation observed at PEEP 15 in supine patients (0.57 +/- 0.30 to 0.41 +/- 0.

46 at low PEEP and the oxygenation response; at PEEP 15, high recruiters had better oxygenation (P = 0.0

47 -CTs on a fixed thoracic transverse slice at PEEP 5 and 15 cm H2O.

48 The EIT-based PEEP providing the best compromise between overdistentio

49 From a baseline PEEP of 8 cm H2O, all interventions were tested using po

50 ntilator group (6 versus 12 ml/kg), baseline PEEP, baseline plateau pressure, baseline tidal volume,

51 f RTN neurons and their steady inhibition by PEEP but did not change their CO(2) sensitivity.

52 pressure) estimated the recruited volume by PEEP.

53 l and to derive from EIT the best compromise PEEP in this setting.

54 the multivariate analysis, higher concurrent PEEP was also related to a greater risk of barotrauma (R

55 Once concurrent PEEP was selected into the model, no other airway pressu

56 cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxem

57 A decremental PEEP trial (20-0 cm H2O) in 5 cm H2O steps was monitored

58 gional distributions were visualized at each PEEP level in 15 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxy

59 euver at 45 cm H2O was performed before each PEEP change.

60 may help to direct safer and more effective PEEP titration.

61 of 98 patients (30.6%) assigned to empirical PEEP-Fio2 died (risk difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -11.1% to

62 ES-guided PEEP and 5 patients with empirical PEEP-Fio2.

63 wise increase of tidal volume and eventually PEEP) or to the low level of PEEP group (n = 987), consi

64 rostrain in tested settings (P < .05) except PEEP of 16 cm H2O (P > .05).

65 and PEEP were set based on the ARDSNet FIO2/PEEP.

66 One method for PEEP titration is a PEEP/FiO2 table that prioritizes sup

67 Techniques to assess lung recruitment from PEEP may help to direct safer and more effective PEEP ti

68 Participants were randomized to PES-guided PEEP (n = 102) or empirical high PEEP-Fio2 (n = 98).

69 102 patients (32.4%) assigned to PES-guided PEEP and 30 of 98 patients (30.6%) assigned to empirical

70 which occurred in 6 patients with PES-guided PEEP and 5 patients with empirical PEEP-Fio2.

71 These findings do not support PES-guided PEEP titration in ARDS.

72 Patients assigned to PES-guided PEEP were significantly less likely to receive rescue th

73 nts with moderate to severe ARDS, PES-guided PEEP, compared with empirical high PEEP-Fio2, resulted i

74 ty of more favorable outcome with PES-guided PEEP: 49.6% [95% CI, 41.7% to 57.5%]; P = .92).

75 recruitment was assessed at 5 and 15 cm H2O PEEP by using respiratory mechanics-based methods: (1) i

76 (EELV-Cst,rs) of the gas volume at 5 cm H2O PEEP.

77 uitment maneuver (peak pressure = 45 cm H2O, PEEP = 35 cm H2O for 1 minute) was applied and alveolar

78 3 [mean +/- SD] cm of H2O; n = 9) or a high PEEP (12 +/- 1 cm of H2O; n = 8) and pigs studied in the

79 ere treated with a strategy involving a high PEEP, there was no significant difference in mortality a

80 roups, including a strategy involving a high PEEP.

81 echanics compared with the low PEEP and high PEEP groups.

82 tability and hyperinflation observed at high PEEP in patients with ARDS.

83 lume of 10 mL/kg, PEEP of 2 cm H2O); b) high PEEP (tidal volume of 10 mL/kg, PEEP of 10 cm H2O); c) l

84 PES-guided PEEP (n = 102) or empirical high PEEP-Fio2 (n = 98).

85 ES-guided PEEP, compared with empirical high PEEP-Fio2, resulted in no significant difference in deat

86 t, the effects of ventilation strategy (high PEEP vs low PEEP) on mortality, ventilator-free days and

87 patients had airway closure higher than high PEEP, and thus recruitment could not be assessed.

88 ment/de-recruitment only decreased when high PEEP and prone positioning were applied together (4.1 +/

89 In two studies that compared low with high PEEP during low tidal volume ventilation, an increase in

90 high-PIP-PLV, 50/5 cm H2O-PLV (n = 8); high-PEEP, 50/20 cm H2O (n = 7); and high-PEEP-PLV, 50/20 cm

91 ); high-PEEP, 50/20 cm H2O (n = 7); and high-PEEP-PLV, 50/20 cm H2O-PLV (n = 7).

92 Higher PEEP (16-24 cm H2O) and a brief T(low) (APRV T-PEFR to P

93 Higher PEEP can improve arterial oxygenation, reduce tidal lung

94 Higher PEEP levels may improve oxygenation and reduce ventilato

95 jury induced by polysorbate lavage, a higher PEEP (20-24 cm H2O) with LTVV resulted in alveolar occup

96 er PEEP strategy was noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy with regard to the number of ventilator-fr

97 lagged values of PEEP were analyzed, higher PEEP was associated with a greater risk of barotrauma (R

98 P = .54) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively.

99 P = .99) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively.

100 mprove their mechanical properties at higher PEEP.

101 In conclusion, higher PEEP may increase the likelihood of early barotrauma in

102 Controlling for the covariates, higher PEEP was related to an increased risk of barotrauma (RH

103 Neither higher PEEP nor PLV reduced the high incidence of barotrauma ob

104 using data from a different trial of higher PEEP (ExPress, n = 749).

105 outcomes are similar whether lower or higher PEEP levels are used.

106 ical ventilation with either lower or higher PEEP levels, which were set according to different table

107 between 0 and 5 cm H2O (n = 476), or higher PEEP, consisting of a PEEP level of 8 cm H2O (n = 493).

108 R, 0-27 days) and 493 patients in the higher PEEP group had a median of 17 ventilator-free days (IQR,

109 dentifying individuals who respond to higher PEEP with recruitment and on clinically important outcom

110 piration and expiration occurred with higher PEEP (16-24 cm H2O) (P > .01) and an increased EEFR to P

111 cognition of ARDS was associated with higher PEEP, greater use of neuromuscular blockade, and prone p

112 oup and 13.2+/-3.5 cm of water in the higher-PEEP group (P<0.001).

113 EEP group and 13.8+/-10.6 days in the higher-PEEP group (P=0.50).

114 However, PEEP may also cause circulatory depression and contribut

115 red oxygen: P/F) after the initial change in PEEP after randomization varied widely (median, 9.5 mm H

116 p between the initial response to changes in PEEP after randomization and mortality.

117 Model-predicted deficits in PEEP-dependent lung recruitment correlate with altered l

118 (2)), following LRM, required an increase in PEEP of 8[7, 10] cmH(2)O above traditional ARDSnet setti

119 suggests recruitment followed by inadequate PEEP permits unstable alveoli and may result in ventilat

120 echanical ventilator settings should include PEEP of 5-10 cmH2O during major abdominal surgery.

121 minutes at standardized settings, including PEEP of 8 cm H(2)O.

122 s localized to the airways because increased PEEP did not induce leukocyte recruitment in the mesente

123 Patients with ARDS who respond to increased PEEP by improved oxygenation have a lower risk of death.

124 up (n = 4) subjected to Tween with increased PEEP (15 cm H2O) to stabilize alveoli.

125 PEEP (n=4) subjected to Tween with increased PEEP (15cmH20) to stabilize alveoli.

126 essure-controlled ventilation with increased PEEP and a fixed driving pressure.

127 Increasing PEEP during LTVV increased alveolar recruitment and dyna

128 Increasing PEEP from 5 to 15 cm H2O decreased nonaerated tissue (50

129 After injury, increasing PEEP from 3 to 10 cm H(2)O did not change gas exchange,

130 TN neuron response to either lung inflation, PEEP increases, vagal stimulation or CO(2).

131 er, data regarding the use of intraoperative PEEP is conflicting.

132 Intrinsic PEEP was assessed a median of six times over the first 4

133 is unlikely that the difference in intrinsic PEEP between the study groups was clinically important i

134 y groups, and difference of median intrinsic PEEP between the groups was <1 cm H2O.

135 .1 cm H2O), compared with a median intrinsic PEEP of 0.5 cm H2O (interquartile range, 0-1.5 cm H2O) a

136 he 6 mL/kg protocol, with a median intrinsic PEEP of 1.3 cm H2O (interquartile range, 0-3.1 cm H2O),

137 The amount of intrinsic PEEP was very low in both study groups, and difference o

138 subgroup of ARDS Network subjects, intrinsic PEEP was statistically significantly higher in subjects

139 We found that intrinsic PEEP was higher among subjects randomized to the 6 mL/kg

140 2O); b) high PEEP (tidal volume of 10 mL/kg, PEEP of 10 cm H2O); c) low tidal volume with PEEP above

141 ry pressure (PEEP; tidal volume of 10 mL/kg, PEEP of 2 cm H2O); b) high PEEP (tidal volume of 10 mL/k

142 open lung strategy, tidal volume of 6 mL/kg, PEEP set 2 cm H2O > Pflex); or d) high-frequency oscilla

143 ce were ventilated with very high (24 ml/kg; PEEP 0) or low Vt (6-7 ml/kg; PEEP 3 cm H(2)O).

144 igh (24 ml/kg; PEEP 0) or low Vt (6-7 ml/kg; PEEP 3 cm H(2)O).

145 atory pressure [PEEP] 0) or low Vt (6 ml/kg; PEEP 3 cm H(2)O; 3 h) in supine or prone position.

146 gs studied in the supine position with a low PEEP (5 +/- 3 [mean +/- SD] cm of H2O; n = 9) or a high

147 igs studied in the prone position with a low PEEP (6 +/- 3 cm of H2O; n = 9).

148 nd the volume predicted by compliance at low PEEP (or above airway opening pressure) estimated the re

149 2.0) correlated with both oxygenation at low PEEP and the oxygenation response; at PEEP 15, high recr

150 of this compliance to the compliance at low PEEP gave the recruitment-to-inflation ratio.

151 rimental group) or a control strategy of low PEEP (n = 509).

152 ion and lung mechanics compared with the low PEEP and high PEEP groups.

153 ts of ventilation strategy (high PEEP vs low PEEP) on mortality, ventilator-free days and organ failu

154 ruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause mortality.

155 severe ARDS compared with a conventional low-PEEP strategy.

156 A lower PEEP (5-10 cm H2O) and a decreased EEFR to PEFR ratio (<

157 not to be extubated within 24 hours, a lower PEEP strategy was noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy

158 oids use was similar in the higher and lower PEEP groups.

159 l to compare the effects of higher and lower PEEP levels on clinical outcomes in these patients.

160 eive invasive ventilation using either lower PEEP, consisting of the lowest PEEP level between 0 and

161 These findings support the use of lower PEEP in patients without ARDS.

162 At day 28, 476 patients in the lower PEEP group had a median of 18 ventilator-free days (IQR,

163 a higher proportion of patients in the lower PEEP group, and for a longer time (0.23 days).

164 tients will benefit from higher versus lower PEEP.

165 gh 4 were 8.3+/-3.2 cm of water in the lower-PEEP group and 13.2+/-3.5 cm of water in the higher-PEEP

166 for a mean of 14.5+/-10.4 days in the lower-PEEP group and 13.8+/-10.6 days in the higher-PEEP group

167 either lower PEEP, consisting of the lowest PEEP level between 0 and 5 cm H2O (n = 476), or higher P

168 Maintaining PEEP at 20 cm H2O or adding PLV reduced the development

169 The median PEEP level was not different between younger patients (n

170 e end-expiratory pressure, DeltaP [PIP minus PEEP], tidal volume, dynamic compliance [Cdyn]) or oxyge

171 ratory rate (RR), and plateau pressure minus PEEP (Delta).

172 Intermittent (2x and 5x) 8 cm H(2)O PEEP also induced a similar reduction in Vwbc, accompani

173 s (80 breaths/minute, 6 ml/kg VT, 1 cm H(2)O PEEP).

174 found an association between application of PEEP >/=5 cmH2O and a decreased risk of postoperative re

175 Application of PEEP >5 cmH2O was associated with a significant lower od

176 literature and rationale for application of PEEP, CPAP or both during thoracic surgery are reviewed,

177 rent tables of predetermined combinations of PEEP and fraction of inspired oxygen.

178 ries and craniotomies, and (2) the effect of PEEP is differed by surgery type.

179 The overall effect of PEEP is primarily related to the balance between the num

180 re is interdependence between the effects of PEEP and prone positioning on these variables is unknown

181 The protective effects of PEEP are procedure specific with meaningful effects obse

182 ed adhesion, reaching a maximum at 1 hour of PEEP.

183 tidal volume reduction at the same level of PEEP (10 cm H(2)O) would diminish the degree of pulmonar

184 ventilation strategy with a higher level of PEEP and alveolar recruitment maneuvers, compared with a

185 Level of PEEP did influence the recovery of PaO2 following suctio

186 ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe

187 of 987 patients (23.6%) in the low level of PEEP group (difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -5.9% to 1.4%]; r

188 and eventually PEEP) or to the low level of PEEP group (n = 987), consisting of a PEEP level of 4 cm

189 atients were randomized to the high level of PEEP group (n = 989), consisting of a PEEP level of 12 c

190 of 989 patients (21.3%) in the high level of PEEP group compared with 233 of 987 patients (23.6%) in

191 ts with hypoxemia (5.0% in the high level of PEEP group vs 13.6% in the low level of PEEP group; diff

192 l of PEEP group vs 13.6% in the low level of PEEP group; difference, -8.6% [95% CI, -11.1% to 6.1%];

193 different between the high and low level of PEEP groups, and 3 were significantly different, includi

194 essure (PEEP); however, the optimal level of PEEP has been difficult to determine.

195 driving pressure and changes in the level of PEEP that result in an increase of driving pressure are

196 ume ventilation, an increase in the level of PEEP that resulted in an increase in driving pressure wa

197 he association of tidal volume, the level of PEEP, and driving pressure during intraoperative ventila

198 mpared with a strategy with a lower level of PEEP, did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complicatio

199 uced by endotracheal suction, high levels of PEEP can help to avoid the associated gas exchange abnor

200 ed mechanical ventilation and high levels of PEEP, and ICU mortality was 26%.

201 related to baseline P/F or the magnitude of PEEP change.

202 No single method of PEEP titration has been shown to improve clinical outcom

203 rome were ventilated at 15 and 5 cm H(2)O of PEEP.

204 ted for 2 or 7 h with 0, 4, or 7 cm H(2)O of PEEP.

205 sponse to treatment in a randomised trial of PEEP strategies differed on the basis of subphenotype.

206 f the article focuses on the clinical use of PEEP and CPAP.

207 There was agreement on the value of PEEP(best) 93% of the time.

208 When one-day lagged values of PEEP were analyzed, higher PEEP was associated with a gr

209 n PEEP < 10), group II (PaO2/FIO2 >/= 150 on PEEP >/= 10), group III (PaO2/FIO2 < 150 on PEEP < 10),

210 PEEP < 10), and group IV (PaO2/FIO2 < 150 on PEEP >/= 10).

211 PEEP >/= 10), group III (PaO2/FIO2 < 150 on PEEP < 10), and group IV (PaO2/FIO2 < 150 on PEEP >/= 10

212 ur categories: group I (PaO2/FIO2 >/= 150 on PEEP < 10), group II (PaO2/FIO2 >/= 150 on PEEP >/= 10),

213 arkedly nonlinear dependence of amplitude on PEEP, RR, and Delta.

214 nce of the amplitude of PaO2 oscillations on PEEP, RR, and Delta was modeled by multiple linear regre

215 ationship between SF and PF, for patients on PEEP in centimeters of water (cm H2O) of <8, 8-12, and >

216 We conclude that determining optimal PEEP by maximal static compliance may be easier to measu

217 esults showed at least one value for optimal PEEP was obtained in 26 of 28 patients (93%).

218 The broad variability in optimal PEEP observed in these patients with severe ARDS under e

219 Our data show that optimal PEEP, as determined by a pressure-volume curve and a max

220 2 days after stable or decreasing FiO(2) or PEEP lasting >/= 2 days.

221 </=0.21, but normalized with higher FiO2 or PEEP in all patients.

222 We conclude that application of PLV or PEEP at 20 cm H2O may improve gas exchange and afford lu

223 Individual changes in VT or PEEP after randomization were not independently associat

224 strongly associated with survival than VT or PEEP in patients who are not actively breathing.

225 expressed as peak inspiratory pressure (PIP)/PEEP: low-PIP, 25/5 cm H2O (n = 8); high-PIP, 50/5 cm H2

226 H2O positive end-expiratory airway pressure (PEEP), and bilateral infiltrates consistent with pulmona

227 intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP(i)).

228 ely higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (5, 10, 16, 20, and 24 cm H2O).

229 e 10cc/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 3cmH20), randomized to into 3 groups and followed

230 O2 of 1.0, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 5 cm H2O, and tidal volume 10 mL/kg.

231 e asked if positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) affects proinflammatory cytokine mRNA expression i

232 t adequate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) after recruitment.

233 s received positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) at 5 cm H2O.

234 >/= 15% or positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) by >/= 2.5 cm H(2)O lasting >/= 2 days after stabl

235 ication of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) caused leukocyte recruitment to the airway.

236 (CPAP) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) for the management of one-lung ventilation during

237 2 cmH(2)O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) had no effect on tongue muscle activity.

238 hether (1) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has a protective effect on the risk of major posto

239 Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been used during mechanical ventilation since

240 levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improve outcomes for patients who have had surgery

241 esponse to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in acute respiratory distress syndrome depends on

242 amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PE

243 use lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in critically ill patients without acute respirato

244 esponse to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in the ALVEOLI cohort.

245 E: Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is unknown in patients with severe acute respirato

246 of global positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may cause overdistension of normal alveoli and red

247 1.0 and a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 20 cm of water.

248 S) receive positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 to 12 cm of water.

249 ibution of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on the relationship between SF and PF, for patient

250 intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) than subjects randomized to the 12 mL/kg predicted

251 euvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on clinical outcomes in patients with ac

252 Adjusting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to offset pleural pressure might attenuate lung in

253 The median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 14 (IQR, 12-16) cm H2O, and Fio2 was greater t

254 concurrent positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was associated with an increased risk of early bar

255 ncremental positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with a limited peak pressure, and pressure-control

256 2/FIO2 and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) would identify subsets of patients with ARDS for p

257 levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory rate (RR), and plateau pressure minus

258 on higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), sedatives, opioids, and NMBAs are used in a highe

259 the use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP); however, the optimal level of PEEP has been diffi

260 increasing positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP; 2-6 cmH(2)O).

261 levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP; 5, 10, 16, 20, and 24 cm H2O) were tested.

262 either a) low peak end-expiratory pressure (PEEP; tidal volume of 10 mL/kg, PEEP of 2 cm H2O); b) hi

263 received a positive end-expository pressure (PEEP) of less than 12 cm H2O.

264 f positive end-expiratory positive pressure (PEEP) with alveolar recruitment maneuvers improves respi

265 27 kPa and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] >=8 cm H(2)O) in five university medical centres i

266 (18 ml/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] 0) or low Vt (6 ml/kg; PEEP 3 cm H(2)O; 3 h) in su

267 10 cc/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] 3 cm H2O), randomized to into three groups, and fo

268 [PBW], and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] expressed as cm H2O), development of pulmonary com

269 Hg with a positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] of >=8 cm of water) to a 48-hour continuous infusi

270 rotective (positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP], 5 cm H(2)O; Vt, 10 ml/kg; respiratory rate, 20 bp

271 y rate, 20 bpm), 2) conventional-protective (PEEP, 10 cm H(2)O; Vt, 6 ml/kg; respiratory rate, 20 bpm

272 Abruptly releasing PEEP (from 15 to 5 cm H(2)O) increases expired volume: t

273 all interventions were tested using post-RM PEEP levels of 8, 12, and 16 cm H2O.

274 Mean (+/-SD) PEEP values on days 1 through 4 were 8.3+/-3.2 cm of wat

275 Other methods set PEEP based on mechanical parameters, such as the plateau

276 es compared with other approaches of setting PEEP.

277 Some PEEP titration strategies attempt to weigh beneficial ef

278 in all patients and in the three stratified PEEP categories (<8 cm H2O, Spearman's rho 0.87, p < 0.0

279 Ventilation with sustained PEEP (8 cm H(2)O for 1 hour reduced Vwbc and increased a

280 njured lungs and under a wide range of V(T), PEEP, and regional PBF values (7-71 mL/kg, 0-15 cm of H2

281 tool to provide real-time monitoring of the PEEP impact in these patients.

282 strategy with lung recruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause m

283 different strategies for optimally titrating PEEP have been proposed.

284 The oxygenation response to PEEP might be used to predict whether patients will bene

285 Response to PEEP was compared between high and low recruiters based

286 ntiates patients with different responses to PEEP.Methods: Patients with acute respiratory distress s

287 The cells most sensitive to PEEP were inhibited during each lung inflation at rest a

288 There was no difference in total PEEP between the study groups.

289 r causing alveolar instability); and Tween + PEEP group (n = 4) subjected to Tween with increased PEE

290 tivator causing alveolar instability); Tween+PEEP (n=4) subjected to Tween with increased PEEP (15cmH

291 Alveolar areas were quantified (using PEEP and EEFR to PEFR ratio) to determine dynamic hetero

292 t in the mesenteric microcirculation or when PEEP was applied to the lung distal to the site of measu

293 he amount of lung that is overdistended when PEEP is applied.

294 additional day: 0.91 (0.84 - 0.98)], whereas PEEP >5 cmH2O was not significantly associated with redu

295 Among patients in whom PEEP was increased after randomization, an increase in P

296 etermine if lung recruitment associated with PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system

297 tive respiratory complications compared with PEEP <5 cmH2O.

298 promoted alveolar recruitment compared with PEEP of 16 cm H2O (mean [SEM] total inspiratory area, 52

299 ARDS to undergo mechanical ventilation with PEEP adjusted according to measurements of esophageal pr

300 PEEP of 10 cm H2O); c) low tidal volume with PEEP above Pflex (open lung strategy, tidal volume of 6

301 ompared with conventional tidal volume, with PEEP applied equally between groups, did not significant