Cited by 1,018Respiratory Support and MechanismsNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchNosocomial Infections in ICU

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

Open access
Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial (ART) Investigators, Cavalcanti, Alexandre Biasi, Suzumura, Érica Aranha, Laranjeira, Ligia Nasi, Paisani, Denise de Moraes, Damiani, Lucas Petri, Guimarães, Helio Penna, Romano, Edson Renato +24 more·2017·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: The effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain uncertain. Objective: To determine if lung recruitment associated with PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance decreases 28-day mortality of patients with moderate to severe ARDS compared with a conventional low-PEEP strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 120 intensive care units (ICUs) from 9 countries from November 17, 2011, through April 25, 2017, enrolling adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Interventions: An experimental strategy with a lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance (n = 501; experimental group) or a control strategy of low PEEP (n = 509). All patients received volume-assist control mode until weaning. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality until 28 days. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay; ventilator-free days through day 28; pneumothorax requiring drainage within 7 days; barotrauma within 7 days; and ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality. Results: A total of 1010 patients (37.5% female; mean [SD] age, 50.9 [17.4] years) were enrolled and followed up. At 28 days, 277 of 501 patients (55.3%) in the experimental group and 251 of 509 patients (49.3%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.42; P = .041). Compared with the control group, the experimental group strategy increased 6-month mortality (65.3% vs 59.9%; HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.38; P = .04), decreased the number of mean ventilator-free days (5.3 vs 6.4; difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P = .03), increased the risk of pneumothorax requiring drainage (3.2% vs 1.2%; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 4.0%; P = .03), and the risk of barotrauma (5.6% vs 1.6%; difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 6.5%; P = .001). There were no significant differences in the length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a strategy with lung recruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the routine use of lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration in these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01374022.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2017.14171

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Instead of the "traditional" recruitment maneuver which consists of the application of sustained continuous positive airway pressure (e.g., 30-40 cm H2O for 30-40 s), both trials conducted lung recruitment with incremental PEEP levels, followed by a decremental PEEP titration according to either best respiratory-system static compliance or oxygen saturation.

    “Instead of the “traditional” recruitment maneuver which consists of the application of sustained continuous positive airway pressure (e.g., 30–40 cm H2O for 30–40 s), both trials conducted lung recruitment with incremental PEEP levels, followed by a decremental PEEP titration according to either best respiratory-system static compliance [452] or oxygen saturation [437].”
  • Two RCTs were published since the 2016 Guidelines, but they were not included in the meta-analyses because both studies applied recruitment maneuvers to titrate PEEP levels.

    “Two RCTs [437, 438] were published since the 2016 Guidelines [12, 13], but we did not include these trials in the meta-analyses because both studies applied recruitment maneuvers to titrate PEEP levels.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial (ART) Investigators, Cavalcanti, A. B., Suzumura, É. A., Laranjeira, L. N., Paisani, D. D. M., Damiani, L. P., Guimarães, H. P., Romano, E. R., Regenga, M. D. M., Taniguchi, L. N. T., Teixeira, C., Pinheiro de Oliveira, R., Machado, F. R., Diaz-Quijano, F. A., Filho, M. S. D. A., Maia, I. S., Caser, E. B., Filho, W. D. O., Borges, M. D. C., Martins, P. D. A., Matsui, M., Ospina-Tascón, G. A., Giancursi, T. S., Giraldo-Ramirez, N. D., Vieira, S. R. R., Assef, M. D. G. P. D. L., Hasan, M. S., Szczeklik, W., Rios, F., Amato, M. B. P., Berwanger, O., & Ribeiro de Carvalho, C. R.
Affiliations
  • HCor Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil
  • Hospital Moinhos de Vento (BR)
  • Irmandade Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
  • Anesthesiology, Pain, and Intensive Care Department, Federal University of São Paulo–UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil
  • Epidemiology Department, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
  • Hospital Maternidade São Vicente de Paulo, Barbalha, Brazil
  • Hospital Nereu Ramos, Florianópolis, Brazil
  • Hospital Unimed Vitória, Vitória, Brazil
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados (BR)
  • Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná (BR)
  • Hospital Pablo Tóbon Uribe, Medellín, Colombia
  • Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
  • Hospital Regional Hans Dieter Schmidt, Joinville, Brazil
  • Jagiellonian University (PL)
  • Hospital Nacional Alejandro Posadas, Moron, Argentina
  • Cardio-Pulmonary Department, Pulmonary Division, Heart Institute (Incor), University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Corresponding author
Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial (ART) Investigators
Venue
JAMA
Published
2017-10-10
Volume
318
Issue
14
Pages
1335
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2758688195
Cited by
1,018
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 67 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 114 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 123 · 2021: 141 · 2020: 170 · 2019: 119 · 2018: 107 · 2017: 8
FWCI
91.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Jagiellonian University Repository (Jagiellonian University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Homo Politicus (Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Homo Politicus (Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz) (submittedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
  • Nova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) (submittedVersion)
  • UNIFESP Institutional Repository (Universidade Federal de São Paulo) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre
  • Universidade de São Paulo
  • Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo
  • Universidade Federal de Goiás
  • Universidade Estadual de Campinas
  • Ministério da Saúde
  • Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
  • Sociedade Beneficente Israelita Brasileira Albert Einstein
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Neonatal Respiratory Health Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Nosocomial Infections in ICU
Keywords
acute respiratory distress syndrome, lung recruitment maneuver, positive end-expiratory pressure titration, 28-day mortality, respiratory compliance, mechanical ventilation, ventilator-free days, barotrauma, pneumothorax, ICU length of stay, 6-month mortality, ARDSNet, weaning from mechanical ventilation, lung-protective ventilation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Pneumothorax, Positive-Pressure Respiration, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Tidal Volume, Treatment Failure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review