ライフサイエンスコーパス: PEEP

1 PEEP can dissociate wedge pressure (Pcw) from transmural

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

3 PEEP stabilized alveoli and significantly reduced histol

4 PEEP was applied from 0-15 mm Hg during GV and PLV.

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

6 PEEP-sensitive RTN neurons expressed Phox2b.

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

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

9 8-12 cm H20, Spearman's rho 0.85, p < 0.001; PEEP >12 cm H2O, Spearman's rho 0.85, p < 0.001).

10 (<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 >

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

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

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

14 ctant-treated preterm lungs and the use of 4 PEEP minimized this response.

15 were higher for 0 and 7 PEEP animals than 4 PEEP animals.

16 imals ventilated with 0 PEEP compared with 4 PEEP.

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

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

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

20 tein and neutrophils were higher for 0 and 7 PEEP animals than 4 PEEP animals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 H2O of pressure controlled ventilation above PEEP for 2 mins to successfully recruit the lung.

28 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

29 (FI(O(2)), 1.0; rate, 20/min; I:E, 1:1) and PEEP (1 cm H(2)O above the Plc on the inspiratory P-V cu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41 livery, judicious use of inspired oxygen and PEEP may be beneficial in selected patients early after

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

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

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

45 At PEEP = 20 cm H(2)O the lungs were probably fully recruit

46 ial pressure or cardiac output minimally (at PEEP(0), GV: Pperi = -1.7 +/- 0.6 mm Hg, CO = 3.2 +/- 0.

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

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

49 +/- 3.5 cm H2O without compensation for auto-PEEP (p = .01).

50 ventilation + TGI causes an increase in auto-PEEP that can blunt CO2 elimination.

51 tested the hypothesis that TGI-induced auto-PEEP alters ventilatory variables.

52 We predicted that TGI-induced auto-PEEP offsets the beneficial effects of TGI on CO2 elimin

53 TGI-induced auto-PEEP was calculated based on dynamic compliance measurem

54 out compensating for the development of auto-PEEP.

55 t keeping total PEEP (ventilator PEEP + auto-PEEP) constant enhances the CO2 elimination efficiency a

56 auto-positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP).

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

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

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

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

61 We demonstrate that in this case PEEP alone was not adequate to recruit the injured lung

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

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

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

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

66 to 2.6 +/- 0.3 s (p < 0.001), and decreased PEEP(i), from 6.4 +/- 1.1 to 5.5 +/- 0.9 cm H(2)O (p < 0

67 to 2.3 +/- 0.2 s (p < 0.025), and decreased PEEP(i), from 7.0 +/- 1.3 to 6.4 +/- 1.1 cm H(2)O (p < 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

77 For the group receiving PEEP, 10 cm H2O PEEP was begun 1.5 hrs after PMA, 1 hr before SURF.

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

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

80 3 [mean +/- SD] cm of H2O; n = 9) or a high PEEP (12 +/- 1 cm of H2O; n = 8) and pigs studied in the

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

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

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

87 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

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

89 Sheep were then assigned to high-PEEP (Group H, n = 5) and low-PEEP (Group L, n = 5) grou

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

91 Higher PEEP can improve arterial oxygenation, reduce tidal lung

92 Higher PEEP levels may improve oxygenation and reduce ventilato

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

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

95 mprove their mechanical properties at higher PEEP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

107 However, PEEP may also cause circulatory depression and contribut

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

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

110 e for exhalation with consequent decrease in PEEP(i).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

119 Increasing PEEP during LTVV increased alveolar recruitment and dyna

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

121 y throughout the experiment after increasing PEEP (p < 0.001), but there was no significant change in

122 After increasing PEEP above Plc, Pa(O(2)) increased significantly (p < 0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

129 .1 cm H2O), compared with a median intrinsic PEEP of 0.5 cm H2O (interquartile range, 0-1.5 cm H2O) a

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

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

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

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

134 2O); b) high PEEP (tidal volume of 10 mL/kg, PEEP of 10 cm H2O); c) low tidal volume with PEEP above

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

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

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

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

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

140 After recruitment, high-level PEEP was needed to prevent derecruitment and this level

141 la by elevating alveolar pressure, PLV, like PEEP, also elevates pleural and alveolar pressures.

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

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

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

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

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

147 tients with ARDS who are ventilated with low PEEP and low VT.

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

149 h conventional gas ventilation (GV) with low PEEP.

150 signed to high-PEEP (Group H, n = 5) and low-PEEP (Group L, n = 5) groups.

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

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

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

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

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

156 tients will benefit from higher versus lower PEEP.

157 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

158 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

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

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

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

162 marked reductions in lung compliance when no PEEP is coadministered.

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

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

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

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

167 appears partly ameliorated by application of PEEP + SURF.

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

169 rs after administration, coadministration of PEEP appears to be critically important in counteracting

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

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

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

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

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

175 recruitment was maintained with 25 cm H2O of PEEP, which was much higher than the PEEP predicted by t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

183 d to prevent derecruitment and this level of PEEP was not adequately predicted by the P(Flex) of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

191 We questioned if the use of PEEP set above the Plc during PLV and GV would result in

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

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

194 On PEEP, Pcw agreed with Pla and Platm as well or better du

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

206 2 days after stable or decreasing FiO(2) or PEEP lasting >/= 2 days.

207 </=0.21, but normalized with higher FiO2 or PEEP in all patients.

208 alliation but normalized with higher FiO2 or PEEP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

215 nd whether positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (10 cm H2O) during SURF administration had a syner

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

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

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

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

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

221 cm H2O of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and 20 cm H2O of pressure controlled ventilation a

222 >/= 15% or positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) by >/= 2.5 cm H(2)O lasting >/= 2 days after stabl

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

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

225 2 cmH(2)O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) had no effect on tongue muscle activity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

233 1.0 and a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 20 cm of water.

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

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

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

237 ponsive to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) than was the LAV or OAI model.

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

239 ventilator positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP) to maintain baseline VT, and decreased the set ins

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

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

242 2/FIO2 and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) would identify subsets of patients with ARDS for p

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

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

245 nd receive positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP).

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

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

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

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

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

251 (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

252 10 cc/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] 3 cm H2O), randomized to into three groups, and fo

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

254 For the group receiving PEEP, 10 cm H2O PEEP was begun 1.5 hrs after PMA, 1 hr b

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

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

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

258 es compared with other approaches of setting PEEP.

259 Some PEEP titration strategies attempt to weigh beneficial ef

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

261 y; c) PMA injury + SURF; and d) PMA + SURF + PEEP.

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

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

264 e pool sizes that were 3-fold higher for the PEEP 4 and 4-fold higher for the PEEP 7 groups relative

265 rge-aggregate fraction was increased for the PEEP 4 and 7 groups, resulting in large-aggregate pool s

266 lveolar surfactant pools were larger for the PEEP 7 group, and the large-aggregate fraction was incre

267 her for the PEEP 4 and 4-fold higher for the PEEP 7 groups relative to the PEEP zero group treated wi

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

269 H2O of PEEP, which was much higher than the PEEP predicted by the lower inflection point (P(Flex)) o

270 higher for the PEEP 7 groups relative to the PEEP zero group treated with rSP-C surfactant.

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

272 different strategies for optimally titrating PEEP have been proposed.

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

274 We conclude that responses to PEEP, VT, and RM differ among these models of ALI.

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

276 In series 1, total PEEP increased from 13.2 +/- 3.2 cm H2O to 17.8 +/- 3.5

277 In series 2, total PEEP was unchanged (p = NS).

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

279 sary to reduce ventilator PEEP to keep total PEEP constant and further enhance CO2 elimination effici

280 while reducing ventilator PEEP to keep total PEEP constant.

281 GI on CO2 elimination and that keeping total PEEP (ventilator PEEP + auto-PEEP) constant enhances the

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

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

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

285 tion and that keeping total PEEP (ventilator PEEP + auto-PEEP) constant enhances the CO2 elimination

286 d, it is also necessary to reduce ventilator PEEP to keep total PEEP constant and further enhance CO2

287 of continuous TGI while reducing ventilator PEEP to keep total PEEP constant.

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

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

290 and GV can markedly improve oxygenation when PEEP is set above the lower corner pressure (Plc) on the

291 than GV while preserving lung structure when PEEP was set 1 cm H(2)O above the Plc and PIP limited to

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

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

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

295 tive respiratory complications compared with PEEP <5 cmH2O.

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

297 anges in Pa(O(2)) only in the OAI model with PEEP = 10 cm H(2)O.

298 seen in the LAV model when ventilating with PEEP = 10 cm H(2)O and VT = 15 ml/kg.

299 s in Pa(O(2)) and EELV when ventilating with PEEP = 10 cm H(2)O.

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

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

302 SURF without PEEP further decreased lung compliance as compared with

303 al sheep surfactant and ventilated with zero PEEP.