PEEP titration: the effect of prone position and abdominal pressure in an ARDS model

• Published in: Intensive care medicine experimental 2018-01, Vol.6 (1), p.3-3, Article 3
• Main Authors: Keenan, Joseph C., Cortes-Puentes, Gustavo A., Zhang, Lei, Adams, Alex B., Dries, David J., Marini, John J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Chest wall; Critical Care Medicine; Esophageal pressure; Intensive; Intra-abdominal hypertension; Mechanical ventilation; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health
• ISSN: 2197-425X; 2197-425X
• DOI: 10.1186/s40635-018-0170-9

Background Prone position and PEEP can both improve oxygenation and other parameters, but their interaction has not been fully described. Limited data directly compare selection of mechanically “optimal” or “best” PEEP in both supine and prone positions, either with or without changes in chest wall compliance. To compare best PEEP in these varied conditions, we used an experimental ARDS model to compare the mechanical, gas exchange, and hemodynamic response to PEEP titration in supine and prone position with varied abdominal pressure. Methods Twelve adult swine underwent pulmonary saline lavage and injurious ventilation to simulate ARDS. We used a reversible model of intra-abdominal hypertension to alter chest wall compliance. Response to PEEP levels of 20,17,14,11, 8, and 5 cmH 2 O was evaluated under four conditions: supine, high abdominal pressure; prone, high abdominal pressure; supine, low abdominal pressure; and prone, low abdominal pressure. Using lung compliance determined with esophageal pressure, we recorded the “best PEEP” and its corresponding target value. Data were evaluated for relationships among abdominal pressure, PEEP, and position using three-way analysis of variance and a linear mixed model with Tukey adjustment. Results Prone position and PEEP independently improved lung compliance ( P