Pressure-Controlled vs Volume-Controlled Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure: A Physiology-Based Narrative and Systematic Review

Background
Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) account for one-quarter of cases of acute respiratory failure in intensive care units (ICUs). A third to half of patients will die in the ICU, in hospital or during follow-up. Mechanical ventilation of people with ALI/ARDS allows time for the lungs to heal, but ventilation is invasive and can result in lung injury. It is uncertain whether ventilator-related injury would be reduced if pressure delivered by the ventilator with each breath is controlled, or whether the volume of air delivered by each breath is limited.

Objectives
To compare pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) versus volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in adults with ALI/ARDS to determine whether PCV reduces in-hospital mortality and morbidity in intubated and ventilated adults.

Search methods
In October 2014, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Isssue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to 1 October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 1 October 2014), the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1994 to 1 October 2014) and Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) at the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1990 to 1 October 2014), as well as regional databases, clinical trials registries, conference proceedings and reference lists.

Selection criteria
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (irrespective of language or publication status) of adults with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure or acute on chronic respiratory failure and fulfilling the criteria for ALI/ARDS as defined by the American-European Consensus Conference who were admitted to an ICU for invasive mechanical ventilation, comparing pressure-controlled or pressure-controlled inverse-ratio ventilation, or an equivalent pressure-controlled mode (PCV), versus volume-controlled ventilation, or an equivalent volume-controlled mode (VCV).

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We sought clarification from trial authors when needed. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

Main results
We included three RCTs that randomly assigned a total of 1089 participants recruited from 43 ICUs in Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Spain and the USA. Risk of bias of the included studies was low. Only data for mortality and barotrauma could be combined in the meta-analysis. We downgraded the quality of evidence for the three mortality outcomes on the basis of serious imprecision around the effect estimates. For mortality in hospital, the RR with PCV compared with VCV was 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; three trials, 1089 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and for mortality in the ICU, the RR with PCV compared with VCV was 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; two trials, 1062 participants; moderate-quality evidence). One study provided no evidence of clear benefit with the ventilatory mode for mortality at 28 days (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 983 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The difference in effect on barotrauma between PCV and VCV was uncertain as the result of imprecision and different co-interventions used in the studies (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.77; two trials, 1062 participants; low-quality evidence). Data from one trial with 983 participants for the mean duration of ventilation, and from another trial with 78 participants for the mean number of extrapulmonary organ failures that developed with PCV or VCV, were skewed. None of the trials reported on infection during ventilation or quality of life after discharge.

Authors' conclusions
Currently available data from RCTs are insufficient to confirm or refute whether pressure-controlled or volume-controlled ventilation offers any advantage for people with acute respiratory failure due to acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. More studies including a larger number of people given PCV and VCV may provide reliable evidence on which more firm conclusions can be based.

Pressure‐controlled versus volume‐controlled ventilation for acute respiratory failure due to acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has multiple causes and is characterized by acute lung inflammation and increased pulmonary vascular permeability, leading to hypoxemic respiratory failure and bilateral pulmonary radiographic opacities. The acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, and effective treatment strategies are limited. This review presents the current state of the literature regarding the etiology, pathogenesis, and management strategies for ARDS.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Etiology, Pathogenesis, and Summary on Management:

There are no guidelines on ventilation modes in morbidly obese patients. We investigated the effects of volume-controlled (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) on gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and cardiovascular responses in laparoscopic gastric banding procedures. After Institutional Review Board approval, 24 adult consenting patients scheduled for laparoscopic gastric banding were studied. Anesthesia was standardized using remifentanil, propofol, rocuronium, and sevoflurane. All patients started with VCV with a tidal volume of 10 ml kg−1 ideal body weight, respiratory rate adjusted to obtain an end-tidal carbon dioxide of 35–40 mmHg, positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cmH2O, an inspiratory pause of 10% and an inspiratory/expiratory ratio of 1:2. Fifteen minutes after pneumoperitoneum, the patients were randomly allocated to two groups. In Group VCV (n = 12), ventilation was with the same parameters. In Group PCV (n = 12), the airway pressure was set to provide a tidal volume of 10 ml kg−1 ideal body weight without exceeding 35 cm H2O. Respiratory rate was adjusted to keep an end-tidal carbon dioxide of 35–40 mmHg. Arterial blood samples were drawn after surgical positioning and 15 min after allocation. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for statistical analysis. With constant minute ventilation, VCV generates equal airway pressures and cardiovascular effects with a lower PaCO2 as compared to PCV (42.5 (5.2) mmHg versus 48.9 (4.3) mmHg, p < 0.01 ANOVA). Arterial oxygenation remained unchanged. VCV and PCV appear to be an equally suited ventilatory technique for laparoscopic procedures in morbidly obese patients. Carbon dioxide elimination is more efficient when using VCV.

/pdf/comparison-of-volume-controlled-and-pressure-controlled-g6l2804asq.pdf

Comparison of volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation during laparoscopic gastric banding in morbidly obese patients.

State-of-the-Art Mechanical Ventilation

Volume-controlled ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (CPPV) is the conventional ventilatory approach in adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients, but some reports suggest that pressure-controlled ventilation with an inverse inspiratory to expiratory ratio (PCIRV) may improve gas exchange in these patients. We analysed the acute effects on gas exchange, lung mechanics and haemodynamics induced by CPPV and PCIRV in ARDS patients. CPPV and PCIRV were applied randomly in ARDS patients. During CPPV, external PEEP was titrated according to the initial inflection point in the static pressure-volume (P-V) curve of the respiratory system, or it was 10 cmH2O when there was no inflection. During PCIRV, external PEEP was not applied, and inspiratory to expiratory (I/E) ratio was inversed until total PEEP was equal to the inflection point in the P-V curve, or it was 10 cmH2O. Respiratory rate, fractional inspiratory oxygen (FIO2), and tidal volume (VT) were kept constant in both modes. Eight ARDS patients were studied prospectively and admitted to a general Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a University Hospital. Haemodynamic measurements, airflow (V), airway pressure (Paw) and VT were obtained using standard methods. We did not observe any significant change between CPPV and PCIRV with respect to: arterial oxygen tension (PaO2) 117 +/- 12 vs 107 +/- 15 mmHg (16 +/- 2 vs 14 +/- 2 kPa), arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) 40 +/- 2 vs 39 +/- 2 mmHg (6 +/- 0.3 vs 5 +/- 0.3 kPa), intrapulmonary shunt function (QS/QT) 36 +/- 3 vs 38 +/- 4%, cardiac output (CO) 7.1 +/- 0.7 vs 7 +/- 0.8 l.min-1, and total PEEP 9.7 +/- 0.6 vs 9 +/- 0.3 cmH2O. Oxygen transport and total respiratory system compliance remained unchanged in both modes. Mean Paw was slightly lower during CPPV (17 +/- 1 cmH2O) than during PCIRV (19 +/- 1 cmH2O). PCIRV does not appear to have clinical advantages over CPPV in terms of gas exchange, haemodynamics, or static lung mechanics when using the same total PEEP and minute ventilation.

Volume-controlled ventilation and pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation: a comparison of their effects in ARDS patients.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

A Net

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Volume-controlled ventilation and pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation: a comparison of their effects in ARDS patients.