Refractory Hypoxaemia Adjuncts — Proning, iNO, Recruitment, NMBA, ECMO

Overview & definition

When severe ARDS remains hypoxaemic despite optimised lung-protective ventilation (low tidal volume, adequate PEEP, plateau under 30 cmH2O), four adjuncts are considered — proning, inhaled nitric oxide, recruitment manoeuvres, and neuromuscular blockade — with VV-ECMO as the rescue for the refractory case. Of these, proning is the only one that consistently reduces mortality; the others are temporising or selective.[1][1]

Definition, severity thresholds and oxygenation indices

Refractory hypoxaemia in the ICU is conventionally defined as a PaO2/FiO2 ratio under 100 despite optimised lung-protective ventilation — Vt 6 mL/kg predicted body weight, plateau pressure under 30 cmH2O, PEEP titrated (FiO2 1.0 if needed), and permissive hypercapnia tolerated. When PaO2/FiO2 falls below 50 for over 3 hours (or below 80 for over 6 hours, or a pH under 7.25 with PaCO2 60 mmHg or more refractory to optimised ventilation), the patient meets VV-ECMO rescue criteria (EOLIA thresholds).[4][1]

Berlin severity grading of ARDS (PEEP/CPAP at least 5 cmH2O)

Oxygenation indices — beyond PaO2/FiO2

• Oxygenation Index (OI) = (mean airway pressure × FiO2 × 100) / PaO2. An OI over 40 in paediatric ARDS is an ECMO criterion; an OI above 25 predicts severe disease and warrants escalation planning.
• Oxygenation Saturation Index (OSI) = (mean airway pressure × FiO2 × 100) / SpO2 — useful when an arterial line is unavailable.
• Driving pressure (ΔP) = plateau pressure minus PEEP. An analysis of pooled ARDSNet data (Amato 2015, NEJM) found that driving pressure is the ventilatory variable that best stratifies risk: a ΔP over 14-15 cmH2O is independently associated with mortality, even after adjusting for Vt and Pplat.[13]
• P/F-to-F ratio trend is more informative than a single value — a falling PaO2/FiO2 over hours despite rising PEEP and FiO2 signals failure of conventional strategy.

Refractory hypoxaemia is not a single diagnosis

Always exclude reversible causes before declaring a patient "refractory": untreated pneumothorax, tube malposition/obstruction, endobronchial intubation, mucous plugging, untreated sepsis with high metabolic demand, right-heart failure or massive pulmonary embolism, undiagnosed shunt (e.g., patent foramen ovale), or unrecognised alveolar flooding from fluid overload. A falling SpO2 in the absence of a worsening P/F should prompt echocardiography rather than an escalation of ventilator settings.[1][22]

Mechanisms — why the lung stays hypoxaemic

Three overlapping mechanisms dominate in established severe ARDS:[1][22]

1. Intrapulmonary shunt — perfusion of non-ventilated, consolidated or atelectatic lung. Unlike V/Q mismatch, shunt is refractory to added FiO2: PaO2 barely rises as FiO2 climbs. This is the dominant lesion in severe ARDS.
2. Low V/Q units — flooded or obstructed alveoli that ventilate poorly; partially responsive to FiO2 and PEEP.
3. Diffusion impairment and dead space — late-stage fibrosis and microvascular obliteration raise dead space; VD/VT rises and CO2 clearance worsens. [1]

The "baby lung" concept (Gattinoni): in ARDS, aerated lung volume is reduced to roughly 20-30 per cent of normal — the lung is small, not stiff. Ventilating 6 mL/kg into this small compartment generates injurious stress and strain. All adjuncts act by either recruiting lung (proning, recruitment, PEEP), improving V/Q matching in already ventilated lung (iNO, inhaled epoprostenol), reducing injurious strain (NMBA, proning), or bypassing the lung entirely (VV-ECMO, ECCO2R).[1]

Refractory hypoxaemia escalation algorithm (the staged pathway)

Prone positioning — the first-line, mortality-reducing adjunct

The PROSEVA trial (NEJM 2013) randomised patients with severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 under 150) to prone positioning for at least 16 hours a day versus continued supine ventilation. Proning reduced 28-day mortality from 32.8 to 16.0 per cent and 90-day mortality, with no increase in complications (the main serious risk, accidental extubation or line dislodgement, was manageable with a trained team).[1]

Mechanisms: proning improves oxygenation by recruiting the dependent (dorsal) lung, reducing shunt and improving ventilation-perfusion matching; but its survival benefit is beyond oxygenation alone — it reduces ventilator-induced lung injury by more uniform lung stress and strain, and it facilitates lung-protective ventilation.[1][1]

Indication: a PaO2/FiO2 under 150 with FiO2 at least 60 per cent and PEEP at least 5 cmH2O.[1]

Contraindications: spinal instability, a recent sternotomy, unstable fractures, raised intracranial pressure, and (relative) pregnancy and severe haemodynamic instability.[1][1]

Practical points: proning is a team procedure (trained staff, careful line and airway management, pressure-area protection); keep the patient prone for at least 16 hours; about 10-15 per cent of patients do not improve oxygenation in the prone position ("non-responders") but proning should still continue for its mortality benefit.[1]

Proning physiology — four reasons it works

1. Reduced shunt — the dependent dorsal lung (which has the greatest perfusion and is most atelectatic when supine) is placed uppermost in the prone position; the dorsal alveoli are recruited by the now-favourable vertical pleural pressure gradient, and shunt falls.
2. More uniform transpulmonary pressure — in the supine position the heart compresses the dependent lung and the vertical gradient of pleural pressure is steep; in the prone position the gradient flattens, ventilation is more homogenous, and regional overdistension and atelectrauma both fall.
3. Reduced lung strain — for the same Vt, regional strain is lower because the aerated lung is larger; VILI is reduced independent of oxygenation, which is why non-responders still benefit.
4. Improved secretion clearance and lymphatic drainage, and reduced right-ventricular afterload in patients with RV dysfunction by reducing PVR through better oxygenation and less hypoxic vasoconstriction. [1]

Proning technique — the turn itself

• Pre-turn: pause enteral feeds (aspiration risk), check tube/line security, suction airway, preoxygenate with FiO2 1.0, ensure at least 5 trained staff plus a team leader, eye protection, ECG on the front.
• The turn: a coordinated 180-degree lateral roll (or log-roll), maintaining head/neck/ETT in alignment. The "swimmer's position" — one arm up, one arm down, head turned — minimises brachial plexus injury.
• Post-turn: new CXR to confirm ETT/CVC and exclude pneumothorax; check pressure areas (forehead, cheeks, chin, shoulders, iliac crests, knees, dorsa of feet) every 2 hours with repositioning; protect eyes (corneal abrasions, ischaemic optic neuropathy are recognised complications).
• Continuous monitoring: SpO2, end-tidal CO2, arterial line trace (often dampens transiently), cardiac rhythm. Anticipate a brief desaturation during the turn itself; this usually resolves within 15-30 minutes. [1]

Proning complications

• Pressure injury to face, chest, anterior iliac crests, knees (most common; protocolised pressure-area care reduces severity).
• Facial and airway oedema — proning raises venous pressure in the head and neck; extubation may be delayed until oedema settles.
• Nerve injuries — brachial plexus, ulnar, common peroneal.
• Eye injury — corneal abrasions, ischaemic optic neuropathy, retinal ischaemia.
• Catheter, line, chest tube or ETT dislodgement — the main serious risk; managed with a trained proning team.
• Cardiovascular instability during the turn (transient hypotension from reduced venous return). [1]

Proning in the awake / non-intubated patient (COVID-era data)

Awake proning of patients on high-flow nasal cannula became widespread during COVID-19. The Ehrmann meta-trial (Lancet Respir Med 2021, six RCTs, n = 1125) found that awake proning did not reduce the need for intubation overall, but improved SpO2; subgroup data suggested a possible benefit in the most hypoxaemic patients.[18] A subsequent individual-patient-data systematic review and meta-analysis (Li, Lancet Respir Med 2022) confirmed a modest oxygenation benefit but a high heterogeneity and no robust mortality signal.[24] Awake proning is reasonable to trial in cooperative patients on HFNC but should NOT delay intubation when indicated.

Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO)

Inhaled nitric oxide is a selective pulmonary vasodilator: it reaches only ventilated alveoli, vasodilating their capillaries and so improving V/Q matching and oxygenation.[1]

• It produces a transient improvement in oxygenation, but does not improve mortality, and meta-analyses suggest it increases the risk of acute kidney injury.[1]
• Its current role is as a rescue or bridge (for example, profound hypoxaemia while arranging ECMO, or right-heart failure from pulmonary hypertension), not routine therapy.[1]

Dosing, monitoring and weaning of iNO

• Dose: start at 1-5 ppm (low dose, less toxicity) and titrate up to a maximum of 20 ppm (higher doses are not more effective and increase methaemoglobinaemia and NO2 generation).
• Monitor: continuous SpO2 and haemodynamics; methaemoglobin every 24 h (keep below 2-3 per cent); inspired NO2 (kept under 3 ppm — use a NO2 scavenger if needed).
• Wean slowly — abrupt cessation causes rebound pulmonary vasoconstriction and rebound hypoxaemia that can be worse than baseline. Halve the dose every few hours and do not stop abruptly.
• Response criterion: a rise in PaO2/FiO2 of at least 20 per cent within 30-60 minutes defines a responder. Only ~60 per cent respond. A non-responder should have iNO withdrawn and a different strategy pursued. [1]

Inhaled epoprostenol (prostacyclin) — the practical alternative

Inhaled epoprostenol (Flolan) aerosolised at 0.02-0.05 mcg/kg/min is as effective as iNO for oxygenation, is cheap and rapidly available, and avoids methaemoglobinaemia and NO2 toxicity. Its main drawback is systemic vasodilatation with hypotension if the aerosol leaks into the systemic circuit (mitigated by using a vibrating-mesh nebuliser in the inspiratory limb), and a short half-life requiring a continuous infusion that cannot be interrupted. Many units now use inhaled epoprostenol as first-line inhaled pulmonary vasodilator, reserving iNO for RV failure with pulmonary hypertension. [1]

Compare: iNO versus inhaled epoprostenol

Recruitment manoeuvres

A recruitment manoeuvre — a brief, deliberate increase in transpulmonary pressure to reopen collapsed alveoli — can improve oxygenation in selected patients, often followed by a higher PEEP to keep the lung open.[1]

• The ART trial (JAMA 2017) found that an aggressive recruitment manoeuvre plus very high PEEP increased 28-day mortality compared with a standard lung-protective strategy. Recruitment is therefore gentle and selective, not an aggressive blanket strategy.[1][6]

Types of recruitment manoeuvre — from gentle to aggressive

1. Sustained inflation — CPAP at 30-40 cmH2O for 30-40 seconds. Simple but associated with haemodynamic compromise and barotrauma; now rarely used in adults.
2. Staircase / incremental PEEP — PEEP increased in 5 cmH2O steps every 2-3 minutes while watching oxygenation, compliance, and haemodynamics, until a plateau (best compliance) is found; PEEP is then decremented to the value 2 cmH2O above the point of best compliance ("open-lung" PEEP).
3. Prolonged sigh — periodic (every 30-60 seconds) 1-3 breath at PEEP 15-20 above baseline with low driving pressure. Lower risk; used by some as a recruitment-maintenance strategy.
4. Extended sigh (PHARLAP-style staircase) — combined prolonged sigh and decremental PEEP; promising but requires close monitoring.
5. PEEP titration guided by oesophageal pressure — set PEEP so that transpulmonary end-expiratory pressure is positive (0-5 cmH2O) — used by EPVent and EPVent-2.[11][12]

Trials informing recruitment practice

• LOVS (Meade, JAMA 2008): open-lung ventilation with recruitment plus high PEEP — no overall mortality benefit, but a trend in the most severe subgroup.[9]
• EXPRESS (Mercat, JAMA 2008): PEEP titrated to maximal alveolar recruitment versus minimal PEEP — improved oxygenation and ventilator-free days but no mortality benefit and more barotrauma.[8]
• ALVEOLI (Brower, NEJM 2004): higher versus lower PEEP/FiO2 — no benefit.[7]
• Briel meta-analysis (JAMA 2010): pooled ALVEOLI/EXPRESS/LOVS — a small survival benefit with higher PEEP in the subgroup with manifest ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 under 200), and possible harm in patients whose lungs were not recruitable.[15]
• ART (Cavalcanti, JAMA 2017): stepwise recruitment plus titrated high PEEP in moderate-severe ARDS — increased 28-day mortality (55 vs 49 per cent) and barotrauma. Aggressive recruitment is harmful.[6]
• PHARLAP (Hodgson, AJRCCM 2019): phase II maximal recruitment open-lung approach — improved oxygenation without raising mortality; phase III stopped for futility.[17]
• EPVent (Talmor, NEJM 2008): oesophageal-pressure-guided PEEP — improved oxygenation and a trend to survival.[11]
• EPVent-2 (Beitler, JAMA 2019): larger multicentre RCT — oesophageal-pressure-guided PEEP was NOT superior to a high PEEP/FiO2 empirical strategy.[12]

Practical take-home: who, when, how

• Trial a gentle recruitment (staircase PEEP, NOT sustained inflation) in patients with a recruitable lung (young, primary pulmonary ARDS, high chest-wall compliance, falling SpO2) when oxygenation is refractory.
• Always do it under continuous haemodynamic and SpO2 monitoring with vasopressors running and the team ready to abort.
• Watch the right heart — abrupt rises in intrathoracic pressure reduce RV preload and raise RV afterload; acute cor pulmonale on echocardiography is an indication to stop.
• Do NOT perform aggressive (ART-style) recruitment — it kills patients.[6]

High PEEP strategies — what the evidence supports

Higher PEEP keeps recruited alveoli open and reduces atelectrauma, but in patients with poorly recruitable lungs it causes overdistension, barotrauma, and haemodynamic compromise. The synthesis of the evidence:[7][8][9][15]

Current practice: titrate PEEP by the higher ARDSNet PEEP/FiO2 table for moderate-severe ARDS, then personalise — use best respiratory-system compliance, best PaO2/FiO2, driving pressure, or oesophageal/transpulmonary pressure to refine. A PEEP that reduces the driving pressure at the same Vt is generally beneficial; a PEEP that raises the driving pressure is overdistending.[13]

Neuromuscular blockade — not routine

The role of neuromuscular blocking agents in severe ARDS has been redefined by two duelling trials:[2][3]

• ACURASYS (NEJM 2010) found that early cisatracurium for 48 hours in severe ARDS improved the adjusted 90-day outcome and reduced barotrauma and patient-ventilator asynchrony, which established a role for paralysis.[2]
• ROSE (NEJM 2019, the PETAL Network) found that routine early continuous cisatracurium did not improve 90-day mortality and was associated with more adverse events (including cardiovascular) than a light-sedation strategy.[3]

Current practice: neuromuscular blockade is not routine; reserve it for patient-ventilator asynchrony, dangerous or injurious ventilation (a high plateau pressure), severe refractory hypoxaemia, or transport, and use it for the shortest time with adequate sedation and monitoring for critical-illness myopathy.[3][1]

Why the trials disagreed

ACURASYS used deep sedation in both arms and a high dose of cisatracurium (37.5 mg/h); ROSE used light sedation as the comparator (a strategy that itself may be beneficial), and allowed crossover. ROSE also enrolled less severely hypoxaemic patients. The totality of evidence suggests NMBA helps only when it eliminates dangerous asynchrony in the sickest patients; used routinely it adds ICU-acquired weakness, prolonged ventilation, and cardiovascular events without offsetting benefit. [1]

Practical NMBA use

• Indication: persistent double-triggering, breath-stacking, or reverse triggering despite deep sedation; a plateau pressure over 30 cmH2O that cannot be controlled by Vt reduction; severe refractory hypoxaemia as a bridge to proning or ECMO; transport of an unstable ventilated patient.
• Choice and dose: cisatracurium 0.2 mg/kg bolus then 1-3 mcg/kg/min infusion, or rocuronium for rapid sequence. Cisatracurium is preferred (Hofmann elimination, organ-independent clearance).
• Monitoring: deep sedation first (RASS -5); train-of-four to 1-2 of 4 twitches; daily pause to reassess and allow interaction; physiotherapy; early mobilisation when stopped.
• Complications: ICU-acquired weakness (combined with corticosteroids the risk is highest), corneal injury (eye care), venous thromboembolism (chemoprophylaxis), prolonged ventilation. [1]

VV-ECMO — the rescue

Veno-venous ECMO is the rescue for the patient with refractory hypoxaemia or hypercapnia unresponsive to optimised conventional ventilation and the adjuncts above. The EOLIA trial (NEJM 2018) of VV-ECMO in very severe ARDS did not reach its primary mortality endpoint at 60 days (35 vs 46 per cent, stopped early for futility), but a Bayesian re-analysis and the post-hoc data support a benefit, and ECMO remains standard rescue for refractory disease.[4][20]

Indications (EOLIA-derived): a PaO2/FiO2 under 50 for more than 3 hours, or under 80 for more than 6 hours, or a pH under 7.25 with a PaCO2 of 60 mmHg or more for more than 6 hours, despite optimised ventilation; or a plateau pressure over 30 cmH2O refractory to adjustment.[4][1]

CESAR — the trial that came before

The CESAR trial (Lancet 2009) randomised adults with severe but potentially reversible respiratory failure to "transfer to a centre capable of ECMO" versus conventional ventilation. The composite primary endpoint (death or severe disability at 6 months) favoured ECMO referral (37 vs 53 per cent).[5] CESAR has important methodological limitations (single ECMO centre, no protocolised conventional ventilation in the control arm, composite outcome), but combined with EOLIA and the Bayesian re-analysis it supports centralised ECMO referral for the most severe cases.[5][20][21]

VV- versus VA-ECMO — the right circuit for the right failure

Predicting survival — the RESP score

The RESP score (Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction) is the most widely used pre-cannulation mortality model. High-scoring predictors: younger age, viral pneumonia, low comorbidity, longer time from intubation, low PEEP at referral, normal CO2, non-respiratory/chronic comorbidity absent. Best outcomes when ECMO is initiated within 7 days of intubation in a patient with single-organ failure and a reversible cause. [1]

ECMO complications (what to watch for on rounds)

• Bleeding (cannulation sites, intracranial — the most feared) and thrombosis — anticoagulation with heparin, target ACT/aPTT per local protocol; some centres run "no anticoagulation" in high-bleeding-risk patients.
• Haemolysis (rising free haemoglobin, falling haemoglobin, dark urine) — pump or oxygenator thrombosis.
• Acute kidney injury (~50 per cent of ECMO patients) — often requiring continuous renal replacement therapy on circuit.
• Infection — line, cannula site, ventilator-associated.
• Recirculation (VV-ECMO) — SpO2 fails to rise despite high flows; reposition cannula.
• Differential hypoxaemia (VA-ECMO with femoral cannulation) — upper body is perfused by the failing heart with poorly oxygenated blood; address by adding an arterial return to the IJ (V-AV configuration). [1]

Weaning and decannulation

Wean VV-ECMO by reducing sweep gas flow (CO2 first) then blood flow (oxygenation), watching SpO2 and PaO2/FiO2 on rising ventilator support. A trial of increased ventilator settings with reduced ECMO flow (the "SET" — Spontaneous breathing trial, ECMO flow reduction trial) is performed daily once the lung recovers. Decannulation when the patient maintains SpO2 above 90 per cent on FiO2 0.5 with lung-protective ventilation. [1]

Apnoeic oxygenation, tracheal gas insufflation, and ECCO2R — niche adjuncts

Apnoeic oxygenation / TRANSLARYNGEAL gas insufflation

Apnoeic oxygenation exploits the fact that oxygen continues to diffuse down the alveolar-capillary gradient even without bulk gas flow. Trans-laryngeal (tracheal) gas insufflation (TGI/TRIO) — low-flow oxygen (1-15 L/min) delivered via a catheter at or below the carina — maintains oxygenation for prolonged apnoea, used historically during airway procedures (rigid bronchoscopy, difficult intubation) and increasingly during preoxygenation for intubation (THRIVE — Transnasal Humidified Rapid-Insufflation Ventilatory Exchange, high-flow nasal cannula at 70 L/min). Apnoeic oxygenation does not clear CO2 — PaCO2 rises at ~3-4 mmHg/min in the apnoeic patient, so it is a bridge only for oxygenation while a definitive airway or oxygenation strategy is established. [1]

Extracorporeal CO2 removal (ECCO2R)

ECCO2R uses lower blood flows (200-500 mL/min) than VV-ECMO to remove CO2 via a membrane lung, permitting ultra-protective ventilation (Vt 3-4 mL/kg) in patients whose CO2 cannot otherwise be cleared without injurious ventilation. It does NOT meaningfully oxygenate. Current roles:[23]

• COPD exacerbation failing non-invasive ventilation (where the problem is CO2, not oxygenation).
• ARDS with injurious ventilation to allow ultra-protective Vt reduction.
• Bridge to recovery in less severe respiratory failure than VV-ECMO. [1]

The evidence base is small (no definitive large RCT showing survival benefit); ECCO2R remains investigational for ARDS but is established for selected COPD use. The main complications are bleeding and vascular injury (large-bore cannulation), haemolysis, and circuit thrombosis.[23]

Adjuncts that do NOT work in adult ARDS

• High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) — OSCILLATE (NEJM 2013) showed increased mortality; OSCAR (NEJM 2013) showed no benefit. Do not use.
• Beta-2 agonists (salbutamol) — ALTA (NEJM 2012) showed increased mortality. Do not use.
• Statins (simvastatin) — HARP-2 (NEJM 2014) and SAILS (NEJM 2014) showed no benefit. Do not use.
• Inhaled surfactant — no mortality benefit in adults.
• Omega-3 fatty acids / ARDS-targeted enteral feeds — no consistent benefit. [1]

Trial cards — the landmark RCTs at a glance

Head-to-head comparison of the adjuncts

[1] [1]

Clinical pearls

[1]

Red flags

References

1. [1]Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, et al.; PROSEVA Study Group. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome N Engl J Med, 2013.PMID 23688302
2. [2]Papazian L, Forel JM, Gacouin A, et al.; ACURASYS Study Investigators. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome N Engl J Med, 2010.PMID 20843245
3. [3]National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PETAL Clinical Trials Network; Moss M, Huang DT, et al. (ROSE trial). Early Neuromuscular Blockade in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome N Engl J Med, 2019.PMID 31112383
4. [4]Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, et al.; EOLIA Trial Investigators, REVA, ECMONet, and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome N Engl J Med, 2018.PMID 29791822
5. [5]Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, et al.; CESAR trial collaboration. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial Lancet, 2009.PMID 19762075
6. [6]Cavalcanti AB, Suzumura ÉA, Laranjeira LN, et al.; Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial (ART) Investigators. 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 JAMA, 2017.PMID 28973363
7. [7]Brower RG, Lanken PN, MacIntyre N, et al.; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ARDS Clinical Trials Network. Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressures in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome N Engl J Med, 2004.PMID 15269312
8. [8]Mercat A, Richard JC, Vielle B, et al.; Expiratory Pressure (Express) Study Group. Positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial JAMA, 2008.PMID 18270353
9. [9]Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, et al.; Lung Open Ventilation Study Investigators. Ventilation strategy using low tidal volumes, recruitment maneuvers, and high positive end-expiratory pressure for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial JAMA, 2008.PMID 18270352
10. [10]Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A, et al.; FLORALI Study Group; REVA Network. High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure N Engl J Med, 2015.PMID 25981908
11. [11]Talmor D, Sarge T, Malhotra A, et al. Mechanical ventilation guided by esophageal pressure in acute lung injury N Engl J Med, 2008.PMID 19001507
12. [12]Beitler JR, Sarge T, Banner-Goodspeed VM, et al.; EPVent-2 Study Group. Effect of Titrating Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) With an Esophageal Pressure-Guided Strategy vs an Empirical High PEEP-Fio2 Strategy on Death and Days Free From Mechanical Ventilation Among Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA, 2019.PMID 30776290
13. [13]Amato MBP, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome N Engl J Med, 2015.PMID 25693014
14. [14]Dellinger RP, Zimmerman JL, Taylor RW, et al.; Inhaled Nitric Oxide in ARDS Study Group. Effects of inhaled nitric oxide in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: results of a randomized phase II trial. Inhaled Nitric Oxide in ARDS Study Group Crit Care Med, 1998.PMID 9428538
15. [15]Briel M, Meade M, Mercat A, et al. Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis JAMA, 2010.PMID 20197533
16. [16]Adhikari NKJ, Burns KEA, Friedrich JO, et al. Effect of nitric oxide on oxygenation and mortality in acute lung injury: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ, 2007.PMID 17383982
17. [17]Hodgson CL, Cooper DJ, Arabi Y, et al. Maximal Recruitment Open Lung Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (PHARLAP). A Phase II, Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2019.PMID 31356105
18. [18]Ehrmann S, Li J, Ibarra-Estrada M, et al. Awake prone positioning for COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a randomised, controlled, multinational, open-label meta-trial Lancet Respir Med, 2021.PMID 34425070
19. [19]Perkins GD, Ji C, Connolly BA, et al. Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA, 2022.PMID 35072713
20. [20]Goligher EC, Tomlinson G, Hajage D, et al. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Posterior Probability of Mortality Benefit in a Post Hoc Bayesian Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA, 2018.PMID 30347031
21. [21]Combes A, Peek GJ, Hajage D, et al. ECMO for severe ARDS: systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis Intensive Care Med, 2020.PMID 33021684
22. [22]Fan E, Brodie D, Slutsky AS. Extracorporeal CO2 Removal-A Solution in Search of a Problem? Crit Care Med, 2019.PMID 30557243
23. [23]Karagiannidis C, Brodie D, Strassmann S, et al. Physiological and Technical Considerations of Extracorporeal CO(2) Removal Crit Care, 2019.PMID 30849995
24. [24]Li J, Luo J, Pavlov I, et al. Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis Lancet Respir Med, 2022.PMID 35305308