Cited by 2,565Respiratory Support and MechanismsNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchNosocomial Infections in ICU

Higher versus Lower Positive End-Expiratory Pressures in Patients with the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ARDS Clinical Trials Network·2004·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most patients requiring mechanical ventilation for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receive positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 to 12 cm of water. Higher PEEP levels may improve oxygenation and reduce ventilator-induced lung injury but may also cause circulatory depression and lung injury from overdistention. We conducted this trial to compare the effects of higher and lower PEEP levels on clinical outcomes in these patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 549 patients with acute lung injury and ARDS to receive mechanical ventilation with either lower or higher PEEP levels, which were set according to different tables of predetermined combinations of PEEP and fraction of inspired oxygen. RESULTS: Mean (+/-SD) PEEP values on days 1 through 4 were 8.3+/-3.2 cm of water in the lower-PEEP group and 13.2+/-3.5 cm of water in the higher-PEEP group (P<0.001). The rates of death before hospital discharge were 24.9 percent and 27.5 percent, respectively (P=0.48; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference between groups, -10.0 to 4.7 percent). From day 1 to day 28, breathing was unassisted for a mean of 14.5+/-10.4 days in the lower-PEEP group and 13.8+/-10.6 days in the higher-PEEP group (P=0.50). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that in patients with acute lung injury and ARDS who receive mechanical ventilation with a tidal-volume goal of 6 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and an end-inspiratory plateau-pressure limit of 30 cm of water, clinical outcomes are similar whether lower or higher PEEP levels are used.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa032193

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • We included three multicentre RCTs and one pilot RCT investigating use of higher PEEP versus lower PEEP strategies in conjunction with low tidal volumes for the management of patients with ARDS.

    “We included three multicentre RCTs [439–441] and one pilot RCT [442], investigating use of higher PEEP versus lower PEEP strategies in conjunction with low tidal volumes for the management of patients with ARDS.”
  • A third option is to use a PEEP/FiO2 titration table that titrates PEEP based on the combination of FiO2 and PEEP required to maintain adequate oxygenation.

    “A third option is to use a PEEP/FiO2 titration table that titrates PEEP based on the combination of FiO2 and PEEP required to maintain adequate oxygenation [439–441].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
The National Heart, L.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ARDS Clinical Trials Network
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2004-07-22
Volume
351
Issue
4
Pages
327-336
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2333411966
Cited by
2,565
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 130 · 2022: 137 · 2021: 177 · 2020: 153 · 2019: 115 · 2018: 123 · 2017: 112 · 2016: 101 · 2015: 110 · 2014: 137 · 2013: 127 · 2012: 133
FWCI
76.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (n01hr046061-006, n01hr046060-006, n01hr046063-006, n01hr046064-009, n01hr046056-006, n01hr046057-006, n01hr046062-006, n01hr046058-006, n01hr046055-006, n01hr046054-006, n01hr046059-006)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (N01-HR-46059, N01-HR 46060, N01-HR-46054, N01-HR 46062, N01-HR-46063, N01-HR 46061, N01-HR-46057, N01-HR 46056, N01-HR46064, N01 HR46058, N0-1 HR 46055)
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, acute lung injury, positive end-expiratory pressure, mechanical ventilation, mortality, ventilator-induced lung injury, fraction of inspired oxygen, tidal volume, plateau pressure, weaning from mechanical ventilation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Positive-Pressure Respiration, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Respiratory Physiological Phenomena, Biomarkers, Interleukin-6, Treatment Outcome, Hospital Mortality, Intercellular Adhesion Molecule-1, Pulmonary Surfactant-Associated Protein D

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