Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been interwoven with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) since its first description by Ashbaugh et al. [1]. Thereafter, the potentially competing effects of PEEP on lung volume, gas-exchange, and hemodynamics were quickly recognized, prompting the first proposals for methods to optimize PEEP in the clinical setting. Eight years after the term ARDS was minted, a seminal study by Suter et al. [2] defined “optimal PEEP” as the value associated with best respiratory compliance. That level was associated with the best oxygen delivery and dead space reduction, even though PaO2 continued to increase at PEEP levels higher than the compliance-defined optimum. This thoughtful approach was based not only on arterial “oxygenation”, but also on hemodynamics and respiratory mechanics. Subsequent research regarding “best PEEP” has resembled the search for the “Holy Grail”, and has developed sequentially along three main lines: oxygenation, lung mechanics, and clinical trials (Fig. 1).
Oxygenation
In the early ‘pre-ventilator-induced lung injury’ era, PEEP was introduced primarily to correct hypoxemia. Unfortunately, the oxygenation target proved difficult to numerically define. The first attempt to set a “best” oxygenation goal was provided by Tenaillon et al. [3], who proposed that best PEEP should reduce the venous admixture to ≤ 15%. This approach encouraged very high PEEP levels (≥ 20 cmH2O); any resulting hemodynamic impairment was often offset by copious fluid infusion. Perhaps, the strongest rationale for considering hemodynamics in PEEP adjustment was later provided by Dantzker et al. [4], who attributed the beneficial effects of PEEP on oxygenation to the associated decrease of blood flowing through abnormal lung units. Indeed, a strong association was noted between PEEP’s reduction of cardiac output and PaO2 improvement. This phenomenon, previously observed by Lemaire et al. [5], remains seldom considered at the bedside. Imprecise arterial oxygenation targets continue to be the most widely used indicator of PEEP response in routine practice. Conversely, despite their questionable rationale and safety, convenient and quite specific PEEP tables are extensively used [6].
Lung mechanics
A widely recognized guide for evaluating lung mechanics, the inspiratory limb of the volume–pressure relationship, was implemented by investigators who proposed setting PEEP 2 cm of water higher than its lower inflection point [7]. This method tacitly assumes that recruitment of viable units is nil at still higher pressures and volumes, and that limited over-distention occurs during tidal ventilation. This misconception motivated research to define and measure recruitment. Unfortunately, the term “recruitment” itself is ambiguous. We and others quantify recruitment through quantitative lung imaging, defining it as the total of gasless tissue regaining aeration. Others assess recruitment as the improved aeration of a predefined lung region [8]. In clinical settings, recruitment has been assumed when tidal compliance increases in response to a PEEP increment [9]. Recruitment estimates measured by improved respiratory mechanics and those quantified by imaging, however, are quite distinct. In fact, better respiratory mechanics result not only from more numerous aerated units, but also from higher compliance of units already open [10]. Other mechanics-based attempts to identify “best PEEP”, an expiratory intervention, have concentrated on the deflation limb of the volume–pressure relationship [11]. Accordingly, airway pressures were reduced stepwise from end-inspiration, with ‘best PEEP’ defined as the pressure just above that at which PaO2 or tidal compliance decreased [12]. This method attributes such changes in respiratory system properties to “de-recruitment” within the lung, ignoring its chest wall enclosure. A sharply different approach, one also based on expiratory mechanics (but of the lung itself), was proposed by Talmor et al. [13]. These authors equated esophageal pressure to pleural pressure and based the elusive “best PEEP” on the level at which the difference between the end-expiratory airway and esophageal pressures turns positive. Apparently, however, doing so offers no clear outcome advantage [14].
Clinical trials
“Best PEEP” has been sought through multiple clinical trials that contrasted outcomes for population cohorts treated with higher vs. lower PEEP or specific approaches to setting it [6]. No single prospective trial, however, has succeeded convincingly, even though impressive meta-analyses favor higher PEEP for specific subgroups [15]. Notably, higher PEEP linked with recruitment maneuvers has been associated with significantly increased mortality [16].
Ideally, a “best PEEP” simultaneously: (1) provides appropriate gas-exchange; (2) keeps the lungs open (prevents phasic airway collapse); (3) avoids alveolar over-distension; and (4) does not compromise hemodynamics. This PEEP ‘grail’ simply does not exist. Any PEEP selected is always a compromise among these objectives—a balance which over time tilts increasingly toward its complications. With only isolated exceptions, the quest for an ‘optimal PEEP’ approach has focused on passive airway pressure and has largely ignored the potentially important influences of disease stage, chest wall stiffness, massive obesity, baby lung capacity, vertical torso angulation, supine/prone body positioning, regional compliance, and need for frequent PEEP reassessment as disease progresses or resolves.
Optimal gas-exchange: PEEP certainly does not require venous admixture to be held < 15%, but it should provide viable gas-exchange (PaO2 60/80 mmHg and PaCO2 < 50/55 mmHg) without excessive dead space generation or potentially toxic levels of FiO2.
Keeps the lungs open: To maintain all unstable alveoli recruited requires PEEP ≥ 20 cmH2O. Hence, it may be safer to accept that a fraction of potentially ‘recruitable’ lung always will remain closed.
Alveolar over-distention: Some over-distention is unavoidable when PEEP exceeds 10/15 cmH2O, a level that causes normal lung units to approach their total capacity.
Hemodynamics: Hemodynamic impairment is, in our opinion, an ever-present side effect whose consequences are largely neglected. PEEP-compromised hemodynamics often are not considered problematic, as they usually respond with apparent ease to fluids and cardioactive drugs. Yet, the resulting histologic consequences of such ‘remedies’ are quite demonstrable in experimental animals [17].
Without question, the judicious application of PEEP has saved many lives. Yet, history has shown that the quest for unique “best PEEP” guidelines is quixotic; rather, best PEEP may simply be that individual-specific, empirical value which provides viable oxygenation (SpO2 > 90% without excessive FiO2 (e.g., > 0.7) and acceptable PaCO2 (< 50/55 mmHg), with minimal need for fluid resuscitation or cardioactive drugs. Starting with a PEEP 10–12 cm H2O is likely the most prudent approach, staying alert to possible hemodynamic consequences whenever PEEP is increased. Once the level is set, it is wise to periodically question and test its need and adequacy.
References
Ashbaugh DG, Bigelow DB, Petty TL, Levine BE (1967) Acute respiratory distress in adults. Lancet 2(7511):319–323
Suter PM, Fairley B, Isenberg MD (1975) Optimum end-expiratory airway pressure in patients with acute pulmonary failure. N Engl J Med 292(6):284–289
Tenaillon A, Labrousse J, Gateau O, Lissac J (1978) Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure and static lung compliance. N Engl J Med 299(14):774–775
Dantzker DR, Lynch JP, Weg JG (1980) Depression of cardiac output is a mechanism of shunt reduction in the therapy of acute respiratory failure. Chest 77(5):636–642
Lemaire F, Gastine H, Regnier B, Teisseire B et al (1977) Changes in intrapulmonary shunting with alterations in pulmonary vascular resistance. Anesthesiology 47(3):315–316
Brower RG, Lanken PN, MacIntyre N, Matthay MA et al (2004) Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressures in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 351(4):327–336
Matamis D, Lemaire F, Harf A, Brun-Buisson C et al (1984) Total respiratory pressure-volume curves in the adult respiratory distress syndrome. Chest 86(1):58–66
Puybasset L, Cluzel P, Chao N, Slutsky AS et al (1998) A computed tomography scan assessment of regional lung volume in acute lung injury. The CT Scan ARDS Study Group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 158(5 Pt 1):1644–1655
Jonson B, Richard JC, Straus C, Mancebo J et al (1999) Pressure-volume curves and compliance in acute lung injury: evidence of recruitment above the lower inflection point. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 159(4 Pt 1):1172–1178
Chiumello D, Marino A, Brioni M, Cigada I et al (2016) Lung recruitment assessed by respiratory mechanics and computed tomography in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. What is the relationship? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 193(11):1254–1263
Lu Q, Constantin JM, Nieszkowska A, Elman M et al (2006) Measurement of alveolar derecruitment in patients with acute lung injury: computerized tomography versus pressure-volume curve. Crit Care 10(3):R95
Suarez-Sipmann F, Bohm SH, Tusman G, Pesch T et al (2007) Use of dynamic compliance for open lung positive end-expiratory pressure titration in an experimental study. Crit Care Med 35(1):214–221
Talmor D, Sarge T, Malhotra A, O'Donnell CR, Ritz R, Lisbon A, Novack V, Loring SH (2008) Mechanical ventilation guided by esophageal pressure in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med 359(20):2095–2104
Beitler JR, Sarge T, Banner-Goodspeed VM, Gong MN et al (2019) Effect of titrating positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with an esophageal pressure-guided strategy vs an empirical high PEEP-Fio2 strategy on death and days free from mechanical ventilation among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 321(9):846–857. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.0555
Briel M, Meade M, Mercat A, Brower RG, Talmor D, Walter SD, Slutsky AS, Pullenayegum E, Zhou Q, Cook D, Brochard L, Richard JC, Lamontagne F, Bhatnagar N, Stewart TE, Guyatt G (2010) Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 303(9):865–873. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.218
Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial I, Cavalcanti AB, Suzumura EA, Laranjeira LN et al (2017) Effect of lung recruitment and titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) vs low PEEP on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(14):1335–1345
Gattarello S, Pasticci I, Busana M, Lazzari S et al (2021) Role of fluid and sodium retention in experimental ventilator-induced lung injury. Front Physiol 12:743153
Ranieri et al (1991) Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on alveolar recruitment and gas exchange in patients with the adult respiratory distress syndrome. Am Rev Respir Dis. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm/144.3_Pt_1.544
Chen et al (2020) Potential for lung recruitment estimated by the recruitment-to-inflation ratio in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201902-0334OC
Acknowledgements
We deeply apologize to the hundreds of authors who contributed to the history of PEEP, which we could not quote due to space limitation.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Gattinoni, L., Marini, J.J. In search of the Holy Grail: identifying the best PEEP in ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med 48, 728–731 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-022-06698-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-022-06698-x