In this prospective, physiologic study on the effect of PP combined with protective ventilation on lung total elastic power in fifty-five patients with moderate to severe ARDS, we found that: (A) PP reduced lung total elastic power and lung total elastic power normalized to EELV compared with SP; (B) lung elastic static power and lung elastic static power normalized to EELV were lower in PP compared with SP using Peso-guided ventilation because comparable PTP and EELV were achieved at lower airway pressures; (C) PP did not reduce lung elastic dynamic power with Peso-guided ventilation compared with SP regardless of EELV normalization; (D) PP improved gas exchange and hemodynamics, thus mitigating the adverse effects of higher airway pressures associated with Peso-guided ventilation while optimizing oxygen delivery.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study prospectively investigating the physiologic effects of PP on lung-transmitted static and dynamic MP components (excluding MP transmission to the chest wall). Normalization of static and dynamic MP components to EELV, which surrogates energy transfer per aerated lung volume, may further enhance the relevance of the present data.
Effects of prone positioning
Total MP, which combines static and dynamic parameters of ventilation, has been investigated to quantify the invasiveness of ventilation and may be related to the risk of VILI [
26,
27]. Thus, the present study compared elastic power and its components (static and dynamic), to estimate lung stress and strain, according to different positioning and ventilation strategies [
22].
However, the role of MP, its static and dynamic components, and the relevance in comparison with simpler bedside indices, e.g., 4 × Δ
PRS + RR, or any other predictor of VILI remains unclear [
23,
28]. Despite the debate about the importance of each MP component, high MP per se, which combines different ventilator variables, increases the risk of VILI in patients with ARDS. Moreover, reducing only one variable may be insufficient to significantly modify MP [
26]. MP, compared to single-ventilator variables or simpler indices, may thus provide a holistic picture on the invasiveness of different ventilation strategies and the effect of positioning. Normalizing MP transfer to the size of the aerated lung may be the essential step for the clinical use of MP and definition of safety thresholds [
11,
27]. This has been shown to correlate power transfer with lung stress and strain [
29] and further improve the prediction of mortality in patients with ARDS [
30]. However, estimating energy transfer per aerated lung volume in clinical practice may be hindered by the requirement to measure EELV. Although normalization to body weight or compliance has been suggested, the optimal method remains unclear [
27].
Another method to measure global lung stress is to isolate the fraction of airway pressure applied to the lung (
PTP) using
Peso measurements [
5]. This can provide relevant information regarding the invasiveness of ventilation in situations with altered chest wall mechanics such as PP [
8,
14,
31]. In this situation,
Peso-guided ventilation with PEEP titrated to maintain a positive end-expiratory
PTP may be clinically useful to balance lung recruitment and overdistension in patients with ARDS [
32].
Thus, utilizing the
Peso measurement to quantify lung MP and normalizing to EELV may add important information regarding the invasiveness of ventilation in patients with ARDS managed with PP, because PP modifies chest wall elastance and increases EELV and lung homogeneity [
27,
33]. We modified PEEP in PP to account for the reduced vertical pleural pressures and the accompanying regional changes in lung mechanics in each individual patient [
7,
12‐
14,
34] and to avoid the influence of inadequate (excessive or insufficient) PEEP on total elastic power transmitted to the lung [
6]. In our study,
VT and RR were comparable between ventilation strategies and positioning; thus, changes in lung total elastic power and its components were due to changes in respiratory mechanics addressed by individualized ventilation strategies.
A recent study by Morais et al. evaluated respiratory mechanics in SP and PP over a range of PEEP levels in patients with ARDS and found a variety of responses in global and regional mechanics induced by PP, suggesting the need to individualize PEEP according to the positioning [
35]. On the contrary, a study by Mezidi et al. found no significant differences in PEEP titrated according to end-expiratory
PTP when patients were turned from SP to PP [
36]. Of note and in contrast to our study with 0° body inclination for both SP and PP, the study compared SP with 30° to PP with 0° to 15° body inclination [
36]. Body inclination has been shown to affect respiratory mechanics and EELV in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS due to changes in chest wall elastance and
PTP [
37,
38].
The effect of PEEP in patients with ARDS is critically dependent on lung recruitability [
39]; however, the large vertical pleural pressure gradient present in supine patients with ARDS [
17] may not allow for significant recruitment without concomitant overdistension due to differences in regional
PTP [
40]. In our study, PP resulted in a significant reduction of lung total elastic power and lung total elastic power normalized to EELV compared with SP. Although the role of static and dynamic MP components in the pathogenesis of VILI is debated [
23,
28], excessive MP, regardless of the constituents, causes similar lung injury [
26,
27]. PP decreases pleural pressure gradients and homogenizes ventilation [
7], reducing the risk of VILI [
4,
41] by limiting regional lung strain due to overdistension and tidal recruitment [
3].
In moderate to severe ARDS patients with recruitable lung parenchyma, PP increases end-expiratory
PTP and EELV [
8,
39]. As demonstrated in the present physiologic study, PP may therefore be a part of a lung-protective ventilation strategy aimed at reducing lung total elastic power transmission per aerated lung volume. This may reduce damaging ventilation above the proposed parenchymal stress threshold by decreasing lung strain while increasing the size of the aerated lung [
10,
42]
. Our results expand the mechanistic understanding of the effects of PP to improve lung protection by reducing energy transfer per aerated lung volume, which has been discussed as a major factor for improved survival in the PROSEVA trial [
2‐
4].
On the other hand, in our study, PP did not reduce lung elastic dynamic power non-normalized and normalized to EELV with
Peso-guided ventilation. The dynamic component of lung MP is exponentially affected by
VT [
9] and may lead to increased inspiratory lung strain, as indicated by the resulting Δ
PTP [
43]. High MP due to excessive
VT causing damaging lung stress and strain is clinically indicated by altered respiratory mechanics with sharply increased
PplatRS and Δ
PTP when EELV is kept constant [
26]. Although the decrease in Δ
PTP and lung elastance with comparable EELV during PP compared to SP was non-significant, this trend may signify the opening of new lung units and/or improved mechanical properties of previously ventilated lung units [
44]. Consequently,
VT is evenly distributed between dependent and non-dependent lung regions during PP and overdistension is limited [
7], as reflected by reduced end-inspiratory lung stress and total elastic power normalized to EELV. Prolonged periods of PP may further reduce total elastic power transfer per aerated lung volume, as EELV has been shown to increase over time in PP [
36].
The key message of our study for clinical practice is that PP allows for a reduction in lung elastic power transmission per aerated lung volume because comparable PTP and EELV can be achieved at lower airway pressures. This may have important implications for the ventilator management during PP.
Effects of ventilation strategies during supine positioning
In our study, compared with baseline,
Peso-guided ventilation in SP resulted in higher PEEP,
PplatRS, and EELV, thereby improving PaO
2/FiO
2 due to a reduced pulmonary shunt. However, this ventilation strategy increased lung total elastic power and lung stress. This is consistent with the results of the EPVent-2 trial, where
Peso-guided ventilation resulted in PEEP levels similar to ours and did not reduce Δ
PTP compared with a ventilation strategy using the higher PEEP/FiO
2 table [
45]. Although there was no significant difference in lung total elastic power normalized to EELV when using
Peso-guided ventilation in SP compared with baseline, higher PEEP and
PplatRS may have resulted in overdistension of non-dependent lung regions, despite improving dependent lung aeration by maintaining positive end-expiratory
PTP and increasing EELV [
18]. Our study demonstrates that PP compared to SP can offset the need for higher airway pressures to maintain positive end-expiratory
PTP and reduce pulmonary shunt. This results in a reduction in total elastic and elastic static power transmission per aerated lung volume compared to SP.
Theoretically, the overall effect of a reduction in end-expiratory
PTP on lung MP is less pronounced than the effect of changes in
VT,
ΔP
RS, and inspiratory airflow [
9]. This suggests that reducing elastic static power may have a minor impact on lung protection; however, a U-shaped relationship between end-expiratory
PTP and the risk of VILI has been discussed, with both insufficient and excessive end-expiratory
PTP causing VILI due to atelectrauma and overdistension, respectively [
22,
26,
32,
46]. As shown experimentally, the application of inadequate lung elastic static power can impair lung structural architecture and elastance, and increase extravascular lung water and inflammation [
26,
46]. Furthermore, the combination of elastic static and dynamic power, but not elastic static or dynamic power alone, correlated with alveolar collapse and regional overdistension as hallmarks of VILI [
22]. This highlights the importance of not reaching a critical lung stress and strain threshold [
10].
In SP,
Peso-guided ventilation with higher PEEP and
PplatRS resulted in a reduction of cardiac output in comparison with baseline. The results of our study are consistent with the findings in an animal model, where higher elastic static power caused severe hemodynamic impairment [
26], which could be translated to the clinical setting. Adverse hemodynamic effects of mechanical ventilation are common in patients with ARDS [
47], but may be limited by PP [
48]. PP with
Peso-guided ventilation restored cardiac output and increased MAP and oxygen delivery in comparison with SP. Possible mechanisms for this effect of PP in our study may include an increased gradient for venous return by increasing intra-abdominal pressure and reduced lung overdistension with decreased pulmonary vascular resistance and right ventricular afterload, thereby improving right ventricular function [
47‐
49].
Limitations
Our study has several limitations. We studied the short-term physiologic effects of PP using
Peso-guided ventilation with similar
per protocol VT and RR; thus, we cannot exclude that the effects of PP on lung MP components differ according to ventilation strategy. In line with the mechanistic understanding of VILI, maintaining a positive end-expiratory
PTP has been associated with lower mortality in a post hoc re-analysis of the EPVent-2 trial [
5]; however, the optimal ventilation strategy during PP is unclear.
Individual lung recruitability was not assessed before the study, and the effect of PEEP on lung total elastic power, lung elastic static, and dynamic power components, as well as respiratory and hemodynamic parameters, may depend on recruitability [
50]. During protective ventilation, a U-shaped relationship between PEEP and VILI has been suggested by experimental studies [
22,
26,
46], but the best method to individualize PEEP is unknown [
19].
Our study focused on lung total elastic power including its elastic static and dynamic components to approximate lung stress and strain [
22]. We excluded the resistive component of MP [
9] because the biological impact of this component in comparison with the elastic power components is unclear [
10,
11,
51]. Additionally, estimating energy transfer per aerated lung volume by normalizing MP in clinical practice may be hindered by the requirement to measure EELV, and the optimal method to normalize MP is unclear [
27].
Another limitation is the lack of an imaging technology, e.g., electrical impedance tomography, to quantify regional lung aeration, as the physiologic effects of PP may be heterogeneous [
35]. Although lung total elastic power, power components normalized to EELV, and lung stress were minimized, we cannot formally exclude regional hyperinflation in PP.