Impact of extended lung protection during mechanical ventilation on lung recovery in patients with COVID-19 ARDS: a phase II randomized controlled trial
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2025

An Educational Video Demonstration of How to Prone a Critically Ill Intubated Patient
Published on: November 30, 2022
Eduardo L V Costa1,2,3, Glasiele C Alcala1,3, Mauro R Tucci3
1Laboratório de Pneumologia LIM-09, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, 455 Dr Arnaldo Ave, Room 2144, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Background:
Protective ventilation seems crucial during early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), but the optimal duration of lung protection remains undefined. High driving pressures (ΔP) and excessive patient ventilatory drive may hinder lung recovery, resulting in self-inflicted lung injury. The hidden nature of the ΔP generated by patient effort complicates the situation further. Our study aimed to assess the feasibility of an extended lung protection strategy that includes a stepwise protocol to control the patient ventilatory drive, assessing its impact on lung recovery.
Methods:
We conducted a single-center randomized study on patients with moderate/severe COVID-19-ARDS with low respiratory system compliance (CRS < 0.6 (mL/Kg)/cmH2O). The intervention group received a ventilation strategy guided by Electrical Impedance Tomography aimed at minimizing ΔP and patient ventilatory drive. The control group received the ARDSNet low-PEEP strategy. The primary outcome was the modified lung injury score (mLIS), a composite measure that integrated daily measurements of CRS, along with oxygen requirements, oxygenation, and X-rays up to day 28. The mLIS score was also hierarchically adjusted for survival and extubation rates.
Results:
The study ended prematurely after three consecutive months without patient enrollment, attributed to the pandemic subsiding. The intention-to-treat analysis included 76 patients, with 37 randomized to the intervention group. The average mLIS score up to 28 days was not different between groups (P = 0.95, primary outcome). However, the intervention group showed a faster improvement in the mLIS (1.4 vs. 7.2 days to reach 63% of maximum improvement; P < 0.001), driven by oxygenation and sustained improvement of X-ray (P = 0.001). The intervention group demonstrated a sustained increase in CRS up to day 28 (P = 0.009) and also experienced a shorter time from randomization to room-air breathing (P = 0.02). Survival at 28 days and time until liberation from the ventilator were not different between groups.
Conclusions:
The implementation of an individualized PEEP strategy alongside extended lung protection appears viable. Promising secondary outcomes suggested a faster lung recovery, endorsing further examination of this strategy in a larger trial. Clinical trial registration This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT04497454) on August 04, 2020.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Respiratory Failure-V
Ensure that patients are monitored continuously for their response to therapy, including changes in...
Mechanical Ventilation III: Noninvasive Ventilation
Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation...
Mechanical Ventilation II: Invasive Ventilation
Negative-Pressure Ventilators
Negative-pressure ventilators create a vacuum around the chest or body to draw air into the lungs, simulating breathing. This method does not require an...
Pneumothorax-II
Clinical Manifestations:
Mechanical Ventilation I: Indication and Settings
Acute Respiratory Failure-III

