Recruitment Maneuvers: Evidence vs Reality

A Contemporary Review for Critical Care Practice

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Recruitment maneuvers (RMs) remain one of the most debated interventions in mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Despite decades of research and clinical experience, the gap between theoretical benefits and clinical outcomes continues to challenge intensivists worldwide. This review examines the current evidence, practical applications, and ongoing controversies surrounding recruitment maneuvers, providing critical care practitioners with evidence-based guidance for clinical decision-making.

Keywords: Recruitment maneuvers, ARDS, mechanical ventilation, lung protective ventilation, critical care

Introduction

The concept of recruitment maneuvers emerged from our understanding that ARDS involves widespread alveolar collapse and heterogeneous lung injury. The theoretical appeal is compelling: temporarily increase transpulmonary pressure to recruit collapsed alveoli, then maintain recruitment with appropriate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). However, the translation from physiological rationale to clinical benefit has proven more complex than initially anticipated.

The fundamental question facing intensivists today is not whether recruitment maneuvers can recruit lung units – they clearly can – but rather whether this translates to meaningful clinical outcomes and whether the risks justify routine use.

Historical Context and Evolution

Recruitment maneuvers gained prominence in the early 2000s following seminal work by Lachmann and colleagues, who demonstrated the "open lung" concept. The Amato et al. study (1998) suggested survival benefits with a recruitment strategy, though this was confounded by concurrent lung-protective ventilation implementation.

The evolution of our understanding can be traced through three distinct phases:

Physiological enthusiasm (1990s-2000s): Focus on oxygenation improvements and lung mechanics
Clinical reality (2010s): Large randomized trials showing limited clinical benefits
Personalized approach (2020s): Patient selection and individualized strategies

Mechanisms and Physiological Rationale

The Physics of Recruitment

Recruitment occurs when transpulmonary pressure exceeds the opening pressure of collapsed alveolar units. The relationship follows LaPlace's law, where smaller units require higher pressures to open. Critical opening pressures in ARDS typically range from 13-20 cmH₂O, though this varies significantly based on:

Disease severity and phase
Chest wall compliance
Intra-abdominal pressure
Presence of consolidation vs. atelectasis

Types of Recruitment Maneuvers

Sustained Inflation (SI)

Most studied approach
Typically 30-40 cmH₂O for 30-60 seconds
Advantages: Simple, reproducible
Disadvantages: Hemodynamic compromise, risk of barotrauma

Incremental PEEP

Stepwise PEEP increases (usually 5 cmH₂O increments)
Maintains ventilation throughout
Better hemodynamic tolerance
More time-consuming

Pressure-Controlled Recruitment

Combines high driving pressure with incremental PEEP
APRV-based approaches
Theoretical advantage in severely injured lungs

Clinical Evidence: The Reality Check

Major Randomized Controlled Trials

The ART Trial (2017) This landmark study by Cavalcanti et al. randomized 1,010 ARDS patients and delivered sobering results:

Primary finding: No improvement in 28-day mortality (55.3% vs. 50.3%, p=0.21)
Safety concern: Increased 6-month mortality in RM group
Mechanism: Likely hemodynamic compromise and ventilator-induced lung injury

The PHARLAP Trial (2019) Hodgson et al. studied 115 moderate-severe ARDS patients:

No mortality benefit at any timepoint
Modest oxygenation improvements that were not sustained
Reinforced questions about clinical utility

Meta-Analyses Systematic reviews consistently show:

Short-term oxygenation: Modest improvements (PaO₂/FiO₂ increase ~20-30 mmHg)
Mortality: No consistent benefit, some suggesting harm
Safety: Increased pneumothorax risk (RR 1.4-1.8)

The Oxygenation Paradox

A critical insight from the evidence is the disconnect between oxygenation improvements and clinical outcomes. This reflects several key principles:

Oxygenation ≠ Outcome: Marginal PaO₂/FiO₂ improvements rarely translate to survival benefits
Recruitment heterogeneity: Not all patients have recruitable lung
Competing risks: Hemodynamic compromise may offset respiratory benefits

Patient Selection: Who Might Benefit?

Potential Candidates

Clinical Scenario 1: Severe Hypoxemia with Recruitable Lung

PaO₂/FiO₂ < 100 mmHg despite optimization
Recent onset ARDS (< 48 hours)
Predominantly atelectatic pattern on imaging
Adequate cardiovascular reserve

Clinical Scenario 2: Post-procedure Atelectasis

Post-operative respiratory failure
Clear precipitant with reversible pathology
Hemodynamically stable

Clinical Scenario 3: Transport-related Derecruitment

Ventilator disconnection during transport
Sudden oxygenation deterioration
Previously responsive to PEEP

Contraindications and Relative Contraindications

Absolute Contraindications:

Hemodynamic instability requiring high-dose vasopressors
Recent pneumothorax or bronchopleural fistula
Severe right heart failure
Intracranial hypertension

Relative Contraindications:

Advanced age (> 80 years)
Multiple organ failure
Extensive consolidation on imaging
High chest wall/abdominal pressures

Practical Implementation: The Art of Technique

Pre-Recruitment Assessment

The "Recruitability" Checklist:

[ ] Hemodynamic stability (MAP > 65 mmHg, minimal vasopressor support)
[ ] Recent onset respiratory failure (< 72 hours optimal)
[ ] Imaging suggesting atelectasis rather than consolidation
[ ] Plateau pressure < 25 cmH₂O at baseline
[ ] Adequate cardiovascular reserve

Step-by-Step Protocol

Preparation Phase:

Optimize FiO₂ to 1.0
Ensure adequate sedation/paralysis if indicated
Continuous hemodynamic monitoring
Pre-oxygenate for 5 minutes
Have resuscitation equipment ready

Execution Phase:

Baseline measurements: Document PaO₂/FiO₂, compliance, hemodynamics
Recruitment phase:
- Sustained inflation: 35-40 cmH₂O for 40 seconds
- Or incremental PEEP: Increase by 5 cmH₂O every 2 minutes to 20-25 cmH₂O
Monitoring: Continuous BP, HR, SpO₂
Abort criteria: SBP < 80 mmHg, HR > 150 bpm, new arrhythmias

Post-Recruitment Phase:

Return to lung-protective settings
Optimize PEEP (decremental trial or imaging-guided)
Reassess after 30 minutes and 4 hours
Document response and complications

Assessment of Response

Immediate Response (< 1 hour):

Oxygenation improvement > 20% suggests recruitability
Compliance improvement > 15% indicates recruitment
Hemodynamic stability maintained

Sustained Response (> 4 hours):

Persistent oxygenation benefit
Reduced FiO₂ requirements
Stable or improved compliance

Risks and Complications

Hemodynamic Consequences

The most significant risk is cardiovascular compromise through multiple mechanisms:

Reduced venous return: Increased intrathoracic pressure
Impaired RV function: Increased pulmonary vascular resistance
Systemic hypotension: Can lead to organ hypoperfusion

Clinical Pearl: Pre-recruitment fluid bolus (250-500 mL) can attenuate hemodynamic effects in euvolemic patients.

Barotrauma and Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury

Pneumothorax incidence increases 40-80%
Risk factors: High baseline pressures, bullous disease, prolonged mechanical ventilation
Subcutaneous emphysema and pneumomediastinum possible

Neurological Considerations

Increased intracranial pressure through reduced venous drainage
Particularly relevant in traumatic brain injury patients
Consider ICP monitoring if available

Controversies and Ongoing Debates

The PEEP vs. Recruitment Debate

A fundamental controversy centers on whether recruitment maneuvers add value beyond optimal PEEP selection:

Pro-Recruitment Argument:

PEEP alone may be insufficient to open collapsed units
Recruitment can "reset" the pressure-volume curve
May allow lower PEEP strategies

Anti-Recruitment Argument:

Proper PEEP titration achieves similar results
Lower risk profile than aggressive recruitment
ART trial suggests potential harm

Timing Controversies

Early vs. Late Recruitment

Early proponents argue for recruitment within 24-48 hours
Late recruitment may be futile due to fibrosis
Window of opportunity concept remains unproven

Personalized Medicine Approach

Emerging evidence suggests response heterogeneity based on:

ARDS phenotypes: Hyperinflammatory vs. hypoinflammatory
Genetic factors: Surfactant protein polymorphisms
Biomarkers: IL-6, SP-D, RAGE levels

Practical Pearls and Clinical Hacks

Pearl 1: The "Recruitment Test"

Before committing to formal recruitment, try a brief "test recruitment":

Increase PEEP by 10 cmH₂O for 5 minutes
If PaO₂/FiO₂ improves > 15%, consider formal recruitment
If no response, unlikely to benefit from aggressive maneuvers

Pearl 2: The "Post-Transport Protocol"

For patients who desaturate after transport:

Quick recruitment with bag-mask at 35 cmH₂O for 20 seconds
Often more effective than prolonged high PEEP
Less hemodynamic compromise than formal protocols

Pearl 3: The "Compliance Clue"

Monitor respiratory system compliance during recruitment:

Improving compliance suggests successful recruitment
Worsening compliance may indicate overdistension
Use as real-time feedback for titration

Clinical Hack 1: The Modified Decremental PEEP Trial

After recruitment:

Start at PEEP 20 cmH₂O
Decrease by 2 cmH₂O every 4 minutes
Monitor compliance and oxygenation
Optimal PEEP = 2 cmH₂O above lowest PEEP with maintained recruitment

Clinical Hack 2: The "Poor Man's Recruitment"

For resource-limited settings:

Manual bag ventilation with PEEP valve
35 cmH₂O pressure for 30 seconds
Monitor via pulse oximetry and clinical assessment
Effective alternative when advanced monitoring unavailable

Oyster 1: The False Responder

Scenario: Patient shows immediate oxygenation improvement post-recruitment but deteriorates within 2-4 hours. Explanation: Initial improvement may reflect improved V/Q matching rather than true alveolar recruitment. Management: Re-evaluate recruitability; may need higher maintenance PEEP.

Oyster 2: The Hemodynamic Paradox

Scenario: Patient maintains blood pressure during recruitment but develops subsequent cardiovascular collapse. Explanation: Delayed effects on RV function and systemic inflammation. Management: Extended monitoring (≥ 6 hours) post-recruitment; consider echocardiography.

Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

Imaging-Guided Recruitment

Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT)

Real-time visualization of recruitment
Optimal PEEP selection
Detection of overdistension

Point-of-Care Ultrasound

Bedside assessment of lung aeration
Monitoring recruitment response
Detection of complications

Biomarker-Driven Approaches

Emerging research focuses on:

Inflammatory phenotyping: Selecting patients based on biomarker profiles
Genetic stratification: Surfactant protein polymorphisms predicting response
Metabolomic signatures: Identifying recruitable lung based on metabolic profiles

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Predictive algorithms for recruitment success
Real-time optimization of ventilator settings
Integration of multiple physiological parameters

Practical Guidelines and Recommendations

Level A Recommendations (Strong Evidence)

Do not perform routine recruitment maneuvers in all ARDS patients
Ensure hemodynamic stability before considering recruitment
Use lung-protective ventilation as the foundation strategy
Monitor for complications during and after recruitment maneuvers

Level B Recommendations (Moderate Evidence)

Consider recruitment maneuvers in severe ARDS (PaO₂/FiO₂ < 100) with recent onset
Perform decremental PEEP trial after recruitment to optimize settings
Limit recruitment attempts to 1-2 procedures per day maximum
Use sustained inflation technique (35-40 cmH₂O for 30-40 seconds) if performing recruitment

Level C Recommendations (Expert Opinion)

Assess recruitability before formal recruitment maneuvers
Consider patient-specific factors (age, comorbidities, ARDS phase)
Integrate with overall care plan rather than isolated intervention
Document rationale and response for quality improvement

Conclusion

Recruitment maneuvers represent a classic example of the complexity inherent in critical care medicine. While physiologically sound and capable of improving short-term oxygenation, the clinical evidence for routine use remains unconvincing and suggests potential harm in unselected populations.

The reality for practicing intensivists is nuanced: recruitment maneuvers should not be abandoned entirely, but their use should be highly selective, carefully monitored, and integrated into a comprehensive lung-protective strategy. The future likely lies in personalized approaches that identify patients most likely to benefit while minimizing risks.

As we await further research into biomarker-guided selection and advanced monitoring techniques, current best practice involves judicious use in carefully selected patients with severe, early ARDS who have evidence of recruitability and adequate physiological reserve.

The evidence-practice gap in recruitment maneuvers serves as a reminder that intensive care medicine must balance physiological rationale with clinical outcomes, always prioritizing patient safety and meaningful benefits over surrogate endpoints.

References

Cavalcanti AB, Suzumura ÉA, Laranjeira LN, et al. 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;318(14):1335-1345.
Hodgson CL, Cooper DJ, Arabi Y, et al. Maximal recruitment open lung ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (PHARLAP): a phase 2, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7(9):739-751.
Amato MBP, Barbas CSV, Medeiros DM, et al. Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(6):347-354.
Brower RG, Lanken PN, MacIntyre N, et al. Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressures in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(4):327-336.
Mercat A, Richard JC, Vielle B, et al. Positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299(6):646-655.
Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, et al. 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;299(6):637-645.
Suzumura EA, Figueiró M, Normilio-Silva K, et al. Effects of alveolar recruitment maneuvers on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(9):1227-1240.
Goligher EC, Kavanagh BP, Rubenfeld GD, et al. Oxygenation response to positive end-expiratory pressure predicts mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A secondary analysis of the LOVS and ExPress trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(1):70-76.
Gattinoni L, Caironi P, Cressoni M, et al. Lung recruitment in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(17):1775-1786.
Fan E, Wilcox ME, Brower RG, et al. Recruitment maneuvers for acute lung injury: a systematic review. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;178(11):1156-1163.
Borges JB, Okamoto VN, Matos GF, et al. Reversibility of lung collapse and hypoxemia in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174(3):268-278.
Lim CM, Jung H, Koh Y, et al. Effect of alveolar recruitment maneuver in early acute respiratory distress syndrome according to antiderecruitment strategy, etiological category of diffuse lung injury, and body position of the patient. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(2):411-418.
Talmor D, Sarge T, Malhotra A, et al. Mechanical ventilation guided by esophageal pressure in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(20):2095-2104.
Grasso S, Mascia L, Del Turco M, et al. Effects of recruiting maneuvers in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome ventilated with protective ventilatory strategy. Anesthesiology. 2002;96(4):795-802.
Pelosi P, Cadringher P, Bottino N, et al. Sigh in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159(3):872-880.

Disclosures: The authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this review.

Funding: No specific funding was received for this review article.

Thursday, September 11, 2025