Free
Clinical Science  |   February 2007
Alveolar Recruitment in Pulmonary and Extrapulmonary Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Comparison Using Pressure-Volume Curve or Static Compliance
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Arnaud W. Thille, M.D.
    *
  • Jean-Christophe M. Richard, M.D., Ph.D.
  • Salvatore M. Maggiore, M.D., Ph.D.
  • V Marco Ranieri, M.D.
    §
  • Laurent Brochard, M.D.
  • * Research Fellow, ∥ Professor, Réanimation Médicale, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Université Paris XII, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U651. † Associate Professor, Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital Charles Nicolle, Université de Rouen, Unité Propre de Recherche et de l'Enseignement Supérieur 38-30, Rouen, France. ‡ Associate Professor, Instituto di Anestesia e Rianimazione, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Policlinico A. Gemelli, Roma, Italia. § Professor, Dipartimento di Anestesia e Rianimazione, Ospedale S. Giovanni Battista-Molinette, Università di Torino, Torino, Italia.
Article Information
Clinical Science / Critical Care / Respiratory System
Clinical Science   |   February 2007
Alveolar Recruitment in Pulmonary and Extrapulmonary Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Comparison Using Pressure-Volume Curve or Static Compliance
Anesthesiology 2 2007, Vol.106, 212-217. doi:
Anesthesiology 2 2007, Vol.106, 212-217. doi:
ACUTE respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterized by severe hypoxemia, bilateral infiltrates, reduced respiratory system compliance, and reduced functional residual capacity.1 Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is the standard of care for recruiting collapsed alveoli.2 The efficacy of PEEP in improving functional residual capacity and gas exchange depends on respiratory mechanics,3,4 ventilator settings,5,6 and disease stage.7,8 Recently, Gattinoni et al.  9 reported evidence that the efficacy of PEEP in recruiting collapsed alveoli differed according to the cause of ARDS, being far less in patients with primary pulmonary disease, such as pneumonia or aspiration, than in patients with extrapulmonary disease, such as abdominal sepsis.9 The volume recruited by PEEP is usually assessed based on the static pressure-volume (P-V) curve of the respiratory system. Alveolar recruitment leads to an upward shift along the volume axis of the P-V curve with PEEP, compared with the curve with zero end-expiratory pressure, and is quantified as the volume increase with PEEP at the same elastic pressure.3,6,10–12 Gattinoni et al.  replaced the P-V curves with PEEP and without PEEP by the linear P-V relation from end-expiration to end-inspiration. However, this method may underestimate or overestimate alveolar recruitment with PEEP, because of the nonlinear behavior of the static P-V relation of the respiratory system. In addition, the population studied by Gattinoni et al.  9 may not be representative of the heterogeneous population of patients with ARDS seen in clinical practice. An effect of the underlying disease on the efficacy of PEEP in recruiting collapsed alveoli might have implications for the treatment of ARDS. To look for evidence supporting such an effect, we examined a large international database of patients with ARDS due to pulmonary or extrapulmonary disease.
Materials and Methods
Patients
In the database, we found 71 patients who received mechanical ventilation for ARDS and for whom P-V curves were available. The patients came from different studies and from three different teaching hospitals, 35 from the Henri Mondor Teaching Hospital, Creteil, France3,6; 18 from the Charles Nicolle Teaching Hospital, Rouen, France13; and 18 from the Policlinico Teaching Hospital, Bari, Italy.4,14 All the studies were approved by each institutional ethics committee, and written consent was obtained before each inclusion. ARDS was defined using the criteria developed by the American-European Consensus Conference on ARDS.1 Patient characteristics are reported in table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients (n = 71) 
Image not available
Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients (n = 71) 
×
Classification of ARDS
Three senior intensivists who had extensive experience with mechanical ventilation and ARDS used information from the hospital records to classify the patients as having pulmonary ARDS, extrapulmonary ARDS, or ARDS of mixed or uncertain origin. They were not otherwise involved in the study, worked independently of one another, and were unaware of the P-V curve results. Pulmonary ARDS was defined as ARDS due to pneumonia, aspiration, inhalation injury, alveolar hemorrhage, or pulmonary contusion; and extrapulmonary ARDS was defined as ARDS due to sepsis-related to abdominal or extraabdominal infection, acute pancreatitis, trauma, cardiopulmonary bypass, or massive blood transfusion. Each expert indicated whether the classification was definite, probable, or doubtful. Patients were classified as having pulmonary ARDS when all three experts agreed on definite or probable pulmonary ARDS, or when two agreed and the third selected ARDS of mixed or uncertain origin. Classification in the extrapulmonary ARDS category was done in the same way, substituting extrapulmonary for pulmonary. Patients who met neither the criteria for pulmonary ARDS nor those for extrapulmonary ARDS were classified as having ARDS of mixed or uncertain origin.
Pressure-Volume Curves
All of the study patients were ventilated with a Siemens Servo 900C ventilator (Siemens Elema AB, Berlin, Germany) and underwent P-V curve recording with and without PEEP to assess respiratory mechanics and recruitment of previously collapsed alveoli. All P-V curves were performed after a 6-s pause to eliminate intrinsic PEEP. P-V curves were recorded using the low-flow method at two centers (53 patients) and the multiple-occlusion method at one center (18 patients). The low-flow method using a computer-controlled Servo Ventilator 900C has been described in detail elsewhere.15 The multiple-occlusion method involved a series of breath tests at different inflation volumes, as previously described.10 With both methods, the volume recruited by PEEP was defined as the difference between the volume measured on the curve starting from PEEP and the volume measured on the curve starting from zero end-expiratory pressure at a static pressure of 15 cm H2O. To identify the upward shift along the volume axis of the P-V curve with PEEP relative to the P-V curve without PEEP, the P-V curve from PEEP was plotted on the same volume axis using the volume variation during passive expiration from PEEP to zero end-expiratory pressure (fig. 1). This volume represents the variation in end-expiratory lung volume induced by PEEP. In 44 patients, two sets of P-V curves were obtained, with high and low PEEPs, respectively.
Fig. 1. Quasi-static compliance was calculated from the pressure-volume (P-V) curve as the tidal volume divided by the change in elastic pressure, with tidal volumes of 400 ml (VT400) and 700 ml (VT700). PEEP = positive end-expiratory pressure. 
Fig. 1. Quasi-static compliance was calculated from the pressure-volume (P-V) curve as the tidal volume divided by the change in elastic pressure, with tidal volumes of 400 ml (VT400) and 700 ml (VT700). PEEP = positive end-expiratory pressure. 
Fig. 1. Quasi-static compliance was calculated from the pressure-volume (P-V) curve as the tidal volume divided by the change in elastic pressure, with tidal volumes of 400 ml (VT400) and 700 ml (VT700). PEEP = positive end-expiratory pressure. 
×
Compliance and Calculation of Alveolar Recruitment
Because Gattinoni et al.  9 used the static compliance method, we also compared this method with the P-V curve method. Static compliance is usually calculated as tidal volume divided by the variation of elastic pressure between end-inspiration and end-expiration. An occlusion maneuver is performed to measure the elastic pressure only, eliminating resistive pressure because of a zero flow. We calculated quasi-static compliance (CqST) from the P-V curve (which give the quasi-static pressure value for any inflated volume with a low flow) by tracing a straight line between zero and the two P-V points on the curve corresponding to tidal volumes of 700 ml (VT700) and 400 ml (VT400) from zero end-expiratory pressure. Each P-V curve started after a 6-s expiration to eliminate intrinsic PEEP. Recruitment evaluated using CqSTwas calculated as the difference in volume between the P-V curve with PEEP and the slope of CqSTat 15 cm H2O elastic pressure, as shown in figure 2.
Fig. 2. Comparison of the pressure-volume curve method and the quasi-static compliance method for calculating alveolar recruitment. The upward shift of the pressure-volume curve with positive end-expiratory pressure indicates alveolar recruitment induced by positive end-expiratory pressure. Quasi-static compliance may be unreliable for assessing the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure on recruitment, because it does not take into account the sinusoidal shape of the pressure-volume curve, which reflects the behavior of the respiratory system. 
Fig. 2. Comparison of the pressure-volume curve method and the quasi-static compliance method for calculating alveolar recruitment. The upward shift of the pressure-volume curve with positive end-expiratory pressure indicates alveolar recruitment induced by positive end-expiratory pressure. Quasi-static compliance may be unreliable for assessing the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure on recruitment, because it does not take into account the sinusoidal shape of the pressure-volume curve, which reflects the behavior of the respiratory system. 
Fig. 2. Comparison of the pressure-volume curve method and the quasi-static compliance method for calculating alveolar recruitment. The upward shift of the pressure-volume curve with positive end-expiratory pressure indicates alveolar recruitment induced by positive end-expiratory pressure. Quasi-static compliance may be unreliable for assessing the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure on recruitment, because it does not take into account the sinusoidal shape of the pressure-volume curve, which reflects the behavior of the respiratory system. 
×
Statistical Analysis
All data are expressed as mean ± SD [median]. Alveolar recruitment values determined using the P-V curve method and using the CqSTmethod at VT400 and VT700 were compared using one-way analysis of variance. Alveolar recruitment and clinical characteristics in the pulmonary, extrapulmonary, and mixed or uncertain groups were also compared by analysis of variance. When analysis of variance was significant, a Bonferroni post hoc  test was performed to determine differences between individual means. P  values of 0.05 or less were considered statistically significant. The SPSS package was used for all statistical tests (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
Results
Of the 71 patients, 29 (41%) were classified in the pulmonary ARDS group, 16 (22%) were classified in the extrapulmonary ARDS group, and 26 (37%) were classified in the mixed/uncertain origin group. Table 2reports the main differences across the three groups. CqSTwas similar in the three groups. Patients with ARDS of mixed/uncertain origin were older and more seriously ill than patients in the other two groups, although mortality was similar. Of the 44 patients who had two sets of P-V curves (two PEEP levels), 21 (47%) were in the pulmonary ARDS group, 6 (14%) were in the extrapulmonary ARDS group, and 17 were (39%) in the mixed/uncertain origin group. Mean PEEP was 10.5 ± 2.9 cm H2O overall (n = 71) and 14.2 ± 1.7 cm H2O in the 44 patients who had P-V curves at a higher PEEP level.
Table 2. Comparison between Patients with Pulmonary ARDS and Those with Extrapulmonary ARDS 
Image not available
Table 2. Comparison between Patients with Pulmonary ARDS and Those with Extrapulmonary ARDS 
×
Alveolar Recruitment Evaluated Using P-V Curves in the Three Groups
The P-V curves at a PEEP level of 10.5 ± 2.9 cm H2O showed no differences in alveolar recruitment across the three groups: 223 ± 111 ml in the pulmonary ARDS group, 206 ± 164 ml in the extrapulmonary ARDS group, and 242 ± 176 ml in the mixed/uncertain origin group (P  = 0.75). No significant differences were found when curves at a higher PEEP level were used to evaluate alveolar recruitment (44 patients): 446 ± 180 ml in the pulmonary ARDS group, 377 ± 242 ml in the extrapulmonary ARDS group, and 396 ± 165 ml in the mixed/uncertain origin group (P  = 0.60; fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Comparison of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment evaluated using the pressure-volume curve in patients with pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, or acute respiratory distress syndrome of mixed or uncertain origin. PEEP-induced recruitment was similar in the three groups,  P  = 0.60 with a high PEEP level (  white squares  ) and  P  = 0.75 with a lower PEEP level (  black squares  ), by analysis of variance. NS = not significant. 
Fig. 3. Comparison of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment evaluated using the pressure-volume curve in patients with pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, or acute respiratory distress syndrome of mixed or uncertain origin. PEEP-induced recruitment was similar in the three groups,  P  = 0.60 with a high PEEP level (  white squares  ) and  P  = 0.75 with a lower PEEP level (  black squares  ), by analysis of variance. NS = not significant. 
Fig. 3. Comparison of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment evaluated using the pressure-volume curve in patients with pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, or acute respiratory distress syndrome of mixed or uncertain origin. PEEP-induced recruitment was similar in the three groups,  P  = 0.60 with a high PEEP level (  white squares  ) and  P  = 0.75 with a lower PEEP level (  black squares  ), by analysis of variance. NS = not significant. 
×
Comparison of the P-V Curve Method and Quasi-Static Compliance Method
In the overall population, alveolar recruitment was 226 ± 148 ml by the P-V curve method, 95 ± 185 ml by the CqSTmethod with VT400, and 23 ± 169 ml by the CqSTmethod with VT700 (P  < 0.01). In the 44 patients who had P-V curves at a higher PEEP level, alveolar recruitment was 417 ± 181 ml by the P-V curve method, 225 ± 187 ml by the CqSTmethod with VT400, and 144 ± 159 ml by the CqSTmethod with VT700 (P  < 0.01; fig. 4).
Fig. 4. Comparison of methods for evaluating positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment. The quasi-static compliance method, evaluated with tidal volumes of 400 ml (quasi-static compliance [CqST], VT400) and 700 ml (CqST, VT700), underestimated alveolar recruitment compared with the pressure-volume (P-V) curve method. Recruitment was compared with two PEEP levels. **  P  < 0.01 between the two methods (with both tidal volumes of 400 and 700 ml) and *  P  < 0.05 between the two tidal volumes by the quasi-static method, by one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni  post hoc  analysis. 
Fig. 4. Comparison of methods for evaluating positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment. The quasi-static compliance method, evaluated with tidal volumes of 400 ml (quasi-static compliance [CqST], VT400) and 700 ml (CqST, VT700), underestimated alveolar recruitment compared with the pressure-volume (P-V) curve method. Recruitment was compared with two PEEP levels. **  P  < 0.01 between the two methods (with both tidal volumes of 400 and 700 ml) and *  P  < 0.05 between the two tidal volumes by the quasi-static method, by one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni  post hoc  analysis. 
Fig. 4. Comparison of methods for evaluating positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment. The quasi-static compliance method, evaluated with tidal volumes of 400 ml (quasi-static compliance [CqST], VT400) and 700 ml (CqST, VT700), underestimated alveolar recruitment compared with the pressure-volume (P-V) curve method. Recruitment was compared with two PEEP levels. **  P  < 0.01 between the two methods (with both tidal volumes of 400 and 700 ml) and *  P  < 0.05 between the two tidal volumes by the quasi-static method, by one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni  post hoc  analysis. 
×
Discussion
In our large sample of patients, PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment was not influenced by the cause of ARDS, whatever the PEEP level. There was the same potential for alveolar recruitment in patients with pulmonary ARDS and in those with extrapulmonary ARDS. In addition, the CqSTmethod resulted in marked underestimation of alveolar recruitment compared with the P-V curve method. These results are consistent with findings from other studies.16,17 They suggest that the PEEP level should not be selected based on the cause of ARDS. In addition, we found that approximately one third of patients could not be readily classified as having pulmonary or extrapulmonary ARDS.
Classification of ARDS
Whether the cause of ARDS was pulmonary or extrapulmonary could not be determined in 26 (37%) of our 71 patients because of mixed or uncertain origin. Although the retrospective design may have contributed to make classification difficult, the large proportion of unclassified patients suggests that errors or uncertainties in classification may be common. Several studies reported differences between pulmonary ARDS and extrapulmonary ARDS in patients with early-stage disease.18 However, results among studies are conflicting, perhaps in part to the existence of cases of mixed origin and to errors in discriminating between pulmonary and extrapulmonary ARDS.19 In a recent study, Esteban et al.  20 compared the clinical criteria for ARDS developed at the American-European Consensus Conference with autopsy findings.1 The accuracy of the clinical criteria was moderate and was lower in patients with pulmonary risk factors than in patients with extrapulmonary risk factors.20 These findings suggest that clinical misclassification may be common, most notably in patients with pulmonary or mixed ARDS. Gattinoni et al.  9 did not report difficulties in separating patients with pulmonary versus  extrapulmonary ARDS. All but one of their patients with pulmonary ARDS had diffuse pneumonia, and most of those with extrapulmonary ARDS had abdominal sepsis.9 These causes may not cover the entire spectrum of patients treated for ARDS in the intensive care unit.
Potential for Alveolar Recruitment and Timing of the Evaluation
Most of the patients studied by Gattinoni et al.  9 had very early-stage disease, with a time from symptom onset shorter than 72 h in most cases. Grasso et al.  8 reported that differences in chest wall mechanics according to the stage of ARDS influenced the potential for alveolar recruitment. Although the patients in our study had later-stage disease, 39 of the 71 (55%) had an early stage of ARDS. Among them, we found no further differences in alveolar recruitment across the three ARDS groups.
This finding has major implications for clinical practice. Although we did not determine functional residual capacity, data from other groups16,21,22 suggest that lung volume may usually be in the 1,500- to 2,000-ml range. Therefore, the potential for recruitment may be approximately 15–20% of the lung volume on average.
P-V Curve and Abdominal Pressure
We used P-V curves of the total respiratory system, which can be used to explore lung mechanics and to measure alveolar recruitment. This method is easily and routinely performed at the bedside to optimize the PEEP level. We did not assess the influence of the chest wall on the respiratory system,23 which can be substantial in patients with major abdominal distension and severe alterations in chest wall compliance.4,24 
Measurement of Recruitment Using Quasi-Static Compliance from P-V Curves
The following differences regarding the measurement of alveolar recruitment using static compliance method may explain some contradictory results.
First, Gattinoni et al.  9 evaluated recruitment above the end-expiratory lung volume measured at zero end-expiratory pressure, using a closed-circuit helium dilution method. However, the authors did not measure end-expiratory lung volume at PEEP, and recruitment was calculated using static compliance. Although we did not measure end-expiratory lung volume, the volume above the end-expiratory lung volume at ZEEP (considered as the reference or zero value) was estimated during a passive expiration from PEEP to zero end-expiratory pressure. From this zero value, we also calculated recruitment induced by PEEP using the static compliance method. Indeed, P-V curves allow the measurement of alveolar recruitment without the need to measure end-expiratory lung volume. Second, Gattinoni et al.  9 calculated static compliance during occlusion maneuvers allowing elimination of the resistive pressure of the lung and to measure elastic pressure only. We measured this quasi-static compliance from P-V curves performed with a low flow to minimize resistive pressure. Moreover, when using the automated low-flow technique, the estimated resistive pressure of the respiratory system was subtracted from the measured pressure.
Third, the P-V curves in our study were obtained using two different methods. The multiple-occlusions method was more often used than the low-flow inflation method in patients with extrapulmonary ARDS. However, several studies showed that the P-V curves were similar with these two methods.15,25 
P-V Curve Method versus  Static Compliance Method
It has been suggested that alveolar recruitment may occur when PEEP induces an increase in static compliance.26 However, there are several limitations to alveolar recruitment evaluation using the static compliance method. First, PEEP induces recruitment even when static compliance remains unchanged10,27 or decreases.3,6,12,28 Compared with the P-V curve method, the static compliance method can substantially underestimate alveolar recruitment because it does not take into account the sinusoidal shape of the P-V curve of the respiratory system (fig. 2). Therefore, underestimation may be greatest when the sinusoidal shape of the P-V curve is more marked. Gattinoni et al.  9 found no recruitment with 15 cm H2O of PEEP in patients with pulmonary ARDS. We believe that static compliance method may be unreliable for evaluating respiratory system elastance and PEEP-induced recruitment. Therefore, when the same investigators used computed tomography to measure recruitment, they found that PEEP induced reaeration of the lung in patients with pulmonary ARDS.29,30 More recently, Gattinoni et al.  31 evaluated the percentage of potentially recruitable lung indicated by computed tomography. They found that most of patients exhibiting a high potential for recruitment had ARDS caused by pneumonia, suggesting that the use of higher PEEP levels could be appropriate in these patients.
Computed tomographic morphologic features may differ between pulmonary and extrapulmonary ARDS.32 However, the computed tomographic appearance does not consistently reflect the origin of ARDS.33 Moreover, Rouby et al.  34 found that patients with diffuse attenuations on computed tomographic scans had a higher incidence of pulmonary ARDS than patients with lobar attenuations, and that PEEP induced marked alveolar recruitment in the group with diffuse attenuations. They concluded that alveolar recruitment induced by PEEP was affected by lung morphology rather than by the cause of ARDS.17 
Conclusion
After a few days of mechanical ventilation, PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment seems independent of the underlying cause of ARDS. Therefore, in our study, potential for alveolar recruitment was as good in the patients with pulmonary ARDS as in those with extrapulmonary ARDS. Decisions about the PEEP level or the use of recruitment techniques during mechanical ventilation should not be based on the origin of ARDS. Static compliance systematically underestimates alveolar recruitment and cannot be used to evaluate PEEP-related alveolar recruitment.
The authors thank Christian Brun-Buisson, M.D. (Professor, Medical Intensive Care Unit, Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil, France), Guy Bonmarchand, M.D. (Professor, Medical Intensive Care Unit, Charles Nicolle Hospital, Rouen, France), and Marc Wysocki, M.D. (Medical Research, Hamilton Medical AG, Rhazüns, Switzerland), who classified patients according to the origin of acute respiratory distress syndrome.
References
Bernard GR, Artigas A, Brigham KL, Carlet J, Falke K, Hudson L, Lamy M, Legall JR, Morris A, Spragg R: The American-European Consensus Conference on ARDS: Definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes, and clinical trial coordination. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 149:818–24Bernard, GR Artigas, A Brigham, KL Carlet, J Falke, K Hudson, L Lamy, M Legall, JR Morris, A Spragg, R
Artigas A, Bernard GR, Carlet J, Dreyfuss D, Gattinoni L, Hudson L, Lamy M, Marini JJ, Matthay MA, Pinsky MR, Spragg R, Suter PM: The American-European Consensus Conference on ARDS: II. Ventilatory, pharmacologic, supportive therapy, study design strategies and issues related to recovery and remodeling. Intensive Care Med 1998; 24:378–98Artigas, A Bernard, GR Carlet, J Dreyfuss, D Gattinoni, L Hudson, L Lamy, M Marini, JJ Matthay, MA Pinsky, MR Spragg, R Suter, PM
Maggiore SM, Jonson B, Richard JC, Jaber S, Lemaire F, Brochard L: Alveolar derecruitment at decremental positive end-expiratory pressure levels in acute lung injury: Comparison with the lower inflection point, oxygenation, and compliance. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 164:795–801Maggiore, SM Jonson, B Richard, JC Jaber, S Lemaire, F Brochard, L
Ranieri VM, Brienza N, Santostasi S, Puntillo F, Mascia L, Vitale N, Giuliani R, Memeo V, Bruno F, Fiore T, Brienza A, Slutsky AS: Impairment of lung and chest wall mechanics in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: Role of abdominal distension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 156:1082–91Ranieri, VM Brienza, N Santostasi, S Puntillo, F Mascia, L Vitale, N Giuliani, R Memeo, V Bruno, F Fiore, T Brienza, A Slutsky, AS
Ranieri VM, Mascia L, Fiore T, Bruno F, Brienza A, Giuliani R: Cardiorespiratory effects of positive end-expiratory pressure during progressive tidal volume reduction (permissive hypercapnia) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anesthesiology 1995; 83:710–20Ranieri, VM Mascia, L Fiore, T Bruno, F Brienza, A Giuliani, R
Richard JC, Maggiore SM, Jonson B, Mancebo J, Lemaire F, Brochard L: Influence of tidal volume on alveolar recruitment: Respective role of PEEP and a recruitment maneuver. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163:1609–13Richard, JC Maggiore, SM Jonson, B Mancebo, J Lemaire, F Brochard, L
Matamis D, Lemaire F, Harf A, Brun-Buisson C, Ansquer JC, Atlan G: Total respiratory pressure-volume curves in the adult respiratory distress syndrome. Chest 1984; 86:58–66Matamis, D Lemaire, F Harf, A Brun-Buisson, C Ansquer, JC Atlan, G
Grasso S, Mascia L, Del Turco M, Malacarne P, Giunta F, Brochard L, Slutsky AS, Marco Ranieri V: Effects of recruiting maneuvers in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome ventilated with protective ventilatory strategy. Anesthesiology 2002; 96:795–802Grasso, S Mascia, L Del Turco, M Malacarne, P Giunta, F Brochard, L Slutsky, AS Marco Ranieri, V
Gattinoni L, Pelosi P, Suter PM, Pedoto A, Vercesi P, Lissoni A: Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by pulmonary and extrapulmonary disease: Different syndromes? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998; 158:3–11Gattinoni, L Pelosi, P Suter, PM Pedoto, A Vercesi, P Lissoni, A
Ranieri VM, Eissa NT, Corbeil C, Chasse M, Braidy J, Matar N, Milic-Emili J: Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on alveolar recruitment and gas exchange in patients with the adult respiratory distress syndrome. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991; 144:544–51Ranieri, VM Eissa, NT Corbeil, C Chasse, M Braidy, J Matar, N Milic-Emili, J
Ranieri VM, Giuliani R, Fiore T, Dambrosio M, Milic-Emili J: Volume-pressure curve of the respiratory system predicts effects of PEEP in ARDS: “Occlusion”versus  “constant flow” technique. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 149:19–27Ranieri, VM Giuliani, R Fiore, T Dambrosio, M Milic-Emili, J
Jonson B, Richard JC, Straus C, Mancebo J, Lemaire F, Brochard L: Pressure-volume curves and compliance in acute lung injury: Evidence of recruitment above the lower inflection point. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999; 159:1172–8Jonson, B Richard, JC Straus, C Mancebo, J Lemaire, F Brochard, L
Richard JC, Brochard L, Vandelet P, Breton L, Maggiore SM, Jonson B, Clabault K, Leroy J, Bonmarchand G: Respective effects of end-expiratory and end-inspiratory pressures on alveolar recruitment in acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 2003; 31:89–92Richard, JC Brochard, L Vandelet, P Breton, L Maggiore, SM Jonson, B Clabault, K Leroy, J Bonmarchand, G
Ranieri VM, Suter PM, Tortorella C, De Tullio R, Dayer JM, Brienza A, Bruno F, Slutsky AS: Effect of mechanical ventilation on inflammatory mediators in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1999; 282:54–61Ranieri, VM Suter, PM Tortorella, C De Tullio, R Dayer, JM Brienza, A Bruno, F Slutsky, AS
Servillo G, Svantesson C, Beydon L, Roupie E, Brochard L, Lemaire F, Jonson B: Pressure-volume curves in acute respiratory failure: Automated low flow inflation versus  occlusion. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155:1629–36Servillo, G Svantesson, C Beydon, L Roupie, E Brochard, L Lemaire, F Jonson, B
Malbouisson LM, Muller JC, Constantin JM, Lu Q, Puybasset L, Rouby JJ: Computed tomography assessment of positive end-expiratory pressure-induced alveolar recruitment in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163:1444–50Malbouisson, LM Muller, JC Constantin, JM Lu, Q Puybasset, L Rouby, JJ
Puybasset L, Gusman P, Muller JC, Cluzel P, Coriat P, Rouby JJ: Regional distribution of gas and tissue in acute respiratory distress syndrome: III. Consequences for the effects of positive end-expiratory pressure. CT Scan ARDS Study Group. Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Intensive Care Med 2000; 26:1215–27Puybasset, L Gusman, P Muller, JC Cluzel, P Coriat, P Rouby, JJ
Pelosi P, D'Onofrio D, Chiumello D, Paolo S, Chiara G, Capelozzi VL, Barbas CS, Chiaranda M, Gattinoni L: Pulmonary and extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome are different. Eur Respir J Suppl 2003; 42:48s–56sPelosi, P D'Onofrio, D Chiumello, D Paolo, S Chiara, G Capelozzi, VL Barbas, CS Chiaranda, M Gattinoni, L
Callister ME, Evans TW: Pulmonary versus  extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome: Different diseases or just a useful concept? Curr Opin Crit Care 2002; 8:21–5Callister, ME Evans, TW
Esteban A, Fernandez-Segoviano P, Frutos-Vivar F, Aramburu JA, Najera L, Ferguson ND, Alia I, Gordo F, Rios F: Comparison of clinical criteria for the acute respiratory distress syndrome with autopsy findings. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141:440–5Esteban, A Fernandez-Segoviano, P Frutos-Vivar, F Aramburu, JA Najera, L Ferguson, ND Alia, I Gordo, F Rios, F
Zinserling J, Wrigge H, Varelmann D, Hering R, Putensen C: Measurement of functional residual capacity by nitrogen washout during partial ventilatory support. Intensive Care Med 2003; 29:720–6Zinserling, J Wrigge, H Varelmann, D Hering, R Putensen, C
Patroniti N, Bellani G, Manfio A, Maggioni E, Giuffrida A, Foti G, Pesenti A: Lung volume in mechanically ventilated patients: Measurement by simplified helium dilution compared to quantitative CT scan. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:282–9Patroniti, N Bellani, G Manfio, A Maggioni, E Giuffrida, A Foti, G Pesenti, A
Roupie E, Dambrosio M, Servillo G, Mentec H, el Atrous S, Beydon L, Brun-Buisson C, Lemaire F, Brochard L: Titration of tidal volume and induced hypercapnia in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 152:121–8Roupie, E Dambrosio, M Servillo, G Mentec, H el Atrous, S Beydon, L Brun-Buisson, C Lemaire, F Brochard, L
Mergoni M, Martelli A, Volpi A, Primavera S, Zuccoli P, Rossi A: Impact of positive end-expiratory pressure on chest wall and lung pressure-volume curve in acute respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 156:846–54Mergoni, M Martelli, A Volpi, A Primavera, S Zuccoli, P Rossi, A
Lu Q, Vieira SR, Richecoeur J, Puybasset L, Kalfon P, Coriat P, Rouby JJ: A simple automated method for measuring pressure-volume curves during mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999; 159:275–82Lu, Q Vieira, SR Richecoeur, J Puybasset, L Kalfon, P Coriat, P Rouby, JJ
Suter PM, Fairley B, Isenberg MD: Optimum end-expiratory airway pressure in patients with acute pulmonary failure. N Engl J Med 1975; 292:284–9Suter, PM Fairley, B Isenberg, MD
Pelosi P, Cereda M, Foti G, Giacomini M, Pesenti A: Alterations of lung and chest wall mechanics in patients with acute lung injury: Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 152:531–7Pelosi, P Cereda, M Foti, G Giacomini, M Pesenti, A
Suter PM, Fairley HB, Isenberg MD: Effect of tidal volume and positive end-expiratory pressure on compliance during mechanical ventilation. Chest 1978; 73:158–62Suter, PM Fairley, HB Isenberg, MD
Gattinoni L, Pesenti A, Avalli L, Rossi F, Bombino M: Pressure-volume curve of total respiratory system in acute respiratory failure: Computed tomographic scan study. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987; 136:730–6Gattinoni, L Pesenti, A Avalli, L Rossi, F Bombino, M
Gattinoni L, Pesenti A, Bombino M, Baglioni S, Rivolta M, Rossi F, Rossi G, Fumagalli R, Marcolin R, Mascheroni D, Torresin A: Relationships between lung computed tomographic density, gas exchange, and PEEP in acute respiratory failure. Anesthesiology 1988; 69:824–32Gattinoni, L Pesenti, A Bombino, M Baglioni, S Rivolta, M Rossi, F Rossi, G Fumagalli, R Marcolin, R Mascheroni, D Torresin, A
Gattinoni L, Caironi P, Cressoni M, Chiumello D, Ranieri VM, Quintel M, Russo S, Patroniti N, Cornejo R, Bugedo G: Lung recruitment in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1775–86Gattinoni, L Caironi, P Cressoni, M Chiumello, D Ranieri, VM Quintel, M Russo, S Patroniti, N Cornejo, R Bugedo, G
Goodman LR, Fumagalli R, Tagliabue P, Tagliabue M, Ferrario M, Gattinoni L, Pesenti A: Adult respiratory distress syndrome due to pulmonary and extrapulmonary causes: CT, clinical, and functional correlations. Radiology 1999; 213:545–52Goodman, LR Fumagalli, R Tagliabue, P Tagliabue, M Ferrario, M Gattinoni, L Pesenti, A
Desai SR, Wells AU, Suntharalingam G, Rubens MB, Evans TW, Hansell DM: Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by pulmonary and extrapulmonary injury: a comparative CT study. Radiology 2001; 218:689–93Desai, SR Wells, AU Suntharalingam, G Rubens, MB Evans, TW Hansell, DM
Rouby JJ, Puybasset L, Cluzel P, Richecoeur J, Lu Q, Grenier P: Regional distribution of gas and tissue in acute respiratory distress syndrome: II. Physiological correlations and definition of an ARDS Severity Score. CT Scan ARDS Study Group. Intensive Care Med 2000; 26:1046–56Rouby, JJ Puybasset, L Cluzel, P Richecoeur, J Lu, Q Grenier, P
Fig. 1. Quasi-static compliance was calculated from the pressure-volume (P-V) curve as the tidal volume divided by the change in elastic pressure, with tidal volumes of 400 ml (VT400) and 700 ml (VT700). PEEP = positive end-expiratory pressure. 
Fig. 1. Quasi-static compliance was calculated from the pressure-volume (P-V) curve as the tidal volume divided by the change in elastic pressure, with tidal volumes of 400 ml (VT400) and 700 ml (VT700). PEEP = positive end-expiratory pressure. 
Fig. 1. Quasi-static compliance was calculated from the pressure-volume (P-V) curve as the tidal volume divided by the change in elastic pressure, with tidal volumes of 400 ml (VT400) and 700 ml (VT700). PEEP = positive end-expiratory pressure. 
×
Fig. 2. Comparison of the pressure-volume curve method and the quasi-static compliance method for calculating alveolar recruitment. The upward shift of the pressure-volume curve with positive end-expiratory pressure indicates alveolar recruitment induced by positive end-expiratory pressure. Quasi-static compliance may be unreliable for assessing the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure on recruitment, because it does not take into account the sinusoidal shape of the pressure-volume curve, which reflects the behavior of the respiratory system. 
Fig. 2. Comparison of the pressure-volume curve method and the quasi-static compliance method for calculating alveolar recruitment. The upward shift of the pressure-volume curve with positive end-expiratory pressure indicates alveolar recruitment induced by positive end-expiratory pressure. Quasi-static compliance may be unreliable for assessing the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure on recruitment, because it does not take into account the sinusoidal shape of the pressure-volume curve, which reflects the behavior of the respiratory system. 
Fig. 2. Comparison of the pressure-volume curve method and the quasi-static compliance method for calculating alveolar recruitment. The upward shift of the pressure-volume curve with positive end-expiratory pressure indicates alveolar recruitment induced by positive end-expiratory pressure. Quasi-static compliance may be unreliable for assessing the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure on recruitment, because it does not take into account the sinusoidal shape of the pressure-volume curve, which reflects the behavior of the respiratory system. 
×
Fig. 3. Comparison of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment evaluated using the pressure-volume curve in patients with pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, or acute respiratory distress syndrome of mixed or uncertain origin. PEEP-induced recruitment was similar in the three groups,  P  = 0.60 with a high PEEP level (  white squares  ) and  P  = 0.75 with a lower PEEP level (  black squares  ), by analysis of variance. NS = not significant. 
Fig. 3. Comparison of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment evaluated using the pressure-volume curve in patients with pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, or acute respiratory distress syndrome of mixed or uncertain origin. PEEP-induced recruitment was similar in the three groups,  P  = 0.60 with a high PEEP level (  white squares  ) and  P  = 0.75 with a lower PEEP level (  black squares  ), by analysis of variance. NS = not significant. 
Fig. 3. Comparison of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment evaluated using the pressure-volume curve in patients with pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, or acute respiratory distress syndrome of mixed or uncertain origin. PEEP-induced recruitment was similar in the three groups,  P  = 0.60 with a high PEEP level (  white squares  ) and  P  = 0.75 with a lower PEEP level (  black squares  ), by analysis of variance. NS = not significant. 
×
Fig. 4. Comparison of methods for evaluating positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment. The quasi-static compliance method, evaluated with tidal volumes of 400 ml (quasi-static compliance [CqST], VT400) and 700 ml (CqST, VT700), underestimated alveolar recruitment compared with the pressure-volume (P-V) curve method. Recruitment was compared with two PEEP levels. **  P  < 0.01 between the two methods (with both tidal volumes of 400 and 700 ml) and *  P  < 0.05 between the two tidal volumes by the quasi-static method, by one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni  post hoc  analysis. 
Fig. 4. Comparison of methods for evaluating positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment. The quasi-static compliance method, evaluated with tidal volumes of 400 ml (quasi-static compliance [CqST], VT400) and 700 ml (CqST, VT700), underestimated alveolar recruitment compared with the pressure-volume (P-V) curve method. Recruitment was compared with two PEEP levels. **  P  < 0.01 between the two methods (with both tidal volumes of 400 and 700 ml) and *  P  < 0.05 between the two tidal volumes by the quasi-static method, by one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni  post hoc  analysis. 
Fig. 4. Comparison of methods for evaluating positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment. The quasi-static compliance method, evaluated with tidal volumes of 400 ml (quasi-static compliance [CqST], VT400) and 700 ml (CqST, VT700), underestimated alveolar recruitment compared with the pressure-volume (P-V) curve method. Recruitment was compared with two PEEP levels. **  P  < 0.01 between the two methods (with both tidal volumes of 400 and 700 ml) and *  P  < 0.05 between the two tidal volumes by the quasi-static method, by one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni  post hoc  analysis. 
×
Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients (n = 71) 
Image not available
Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients (n = 71) 
×
Table 2. Comparison between Patients with Pulmonary ARDS and Those with Extrapulmonary ARDS 
Image not available
Table 2. Comparison between Patients with Pulmonary ARDS and Those with Extrapulmonary ARDS 
×