4.5 Review

Mechanical Ventilation in Adults with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Summary of the Experimental Evidence for the Clinical Practice Guideline

Journal

ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages S261-S270

Publisher

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-345OT

Keywords

acute respiratory distress syndrome; mechanical ventilation; ventilator-induced lung injury

Funding

  1. American Thoracic Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale: The American Thoracic Society/European Society for Intensive CareMedicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines on mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) provide treatment recommendations derived from a thorough analysis of the clinical evidence on six clinical interventions. However, each of the recommendations contains areas of uncertainty and controversy, which may affect their appropriate clinical application. Objectives: To provide a critical review of the experimental evidence surrounding the pathophysiology of ventilator-induced lung injury and to help clinicians apply the clinical recommendations to individual patients. Methods: We conducted a literature search and narrative review. Results: A large number of experimental studies have been performed with the aim of improving understanding These studies have formed the basis for the design of many clinical trials. Translational research has fundamentally advanced understanding of the mechanisms of ventilator-induced lung injury, thus informing the design of interventions that improve survival in patients with ARDS. Conclusions: Because daily management of patients with ARDS presents the challenge of competing considerations, clinicians should consider the mechanism of ventilator-induced lung injury, as well as the rationale for interventions designed to mitigate it, when applying evidence-based recommendations at the bedside.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available