Ultra-Lung Protective Ventilation

 

Ultra-Lung Protective Ventilation: Driving Pressure, Mechanical Power, and Permissive Strategies in ARDS - A Contemporary Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains a leading cause of mortality in critically ill patients. While conventional lung protective ventilation has improved outcomes, emerging concepts of ultra-lung protective ventilation (ULPV) offer potential for further mortality reduction through optimization of driving pressure, mechanical power, and permissive strategies.

Objectives: To review current evidence and practical applications of ultra-lung protective ventilation strategies, including driving pressure optimization, mechanical power concepts, and permissive approaches in ARDS management.

Methods: Comprehensive review of literature from 2000-2024, focusing on randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies examining ULPV strategies.

Results: Ultra-lung protective ventilation encompasses multiple interconnected strategies that target ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) through novel metrics beyond traditional tidal volume limitations. Driving pressure emerges as a superior predictor of mortality compared to tidal volume or PEEP alone. Mechanical power provides a unifying framework for understanding energy transfer to the lung. Permissive strategies including hypercapnia and atelectasis show promise in selected patients.

Conclusions: Implementation of ULPV requires individualized approaches integrating multiple physiological parameters. While promising, many strategies require further validation in randomized trials.

Keywords: ARDS, mechanical ventilation, driving pressure, mechanical power, lung protection, VILI

---

Introduction

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) affects approximately 200,000 patients annually in the United States, with mortality rates remaining stubbornly high at 35-45% despite decades of research (1,2). The landmark ARDSNet trial in 2000 established low tidal volume ventilation (6 ml/kg predicted body weight) as the cornerstone of lung protective ventilation (LPV), reducing mortality by 22% (3). However, subsequent attempts to further improve outcomes through additional lung protective strategies have yielded mixed results, prompting evolution toward "ultra-lung protective ventilation" (ULPV) concepts.

Ultra-lung protective ventilation represents a paradigm shift from protocol-driven to personalized, physiology-based approaches. Rather than focusing solely on tidal volume limitations, ULPV integrates multiple parameters including driving pressure, mechanical power, regional lung mechanics, and permissive strategies to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) while maintaining adequate gas exchange (4,5).

This review examines the current evidence base for ULPV strategies, practical implementation considerations, and future directions in ARDS management for the practicing intensivist.

Pathophysiology of VILI and Rationale for ULPV

Mechanisms of Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury

VILI occurs through four primary mechanisms: volutrauma, barotrauma, atelectrauma, and biotrauma (6). Traditional lung protective ventilation primarily addressed volutrauma through tidal volume limitation. However, ARDS lungs are heterogeneous, with regional differences in compliance, recruitment potential, and stress distribution (7).

The concept of "baby lung" - functional lung tissue reduced to approximately 20-30% of normal in severe ARDS - explains why even ARDSNet-compliant ventilation may cause regional overdistension (8). ULPV strategies aim to address this heterogeneity through individualized approaches that consider regional lung mechanics and energy transfer.

Pearl #1: The Heterogeneous Lung Concept

Remember that ARDS affects lung regions differently. What appears as "lung protective" globally may cause significant regional overdistension in functional lung units. Always consider the heterogeneous nature of ARDS when setting ventilator parameters.

Driving Pressure: The New Gold Standard

Definition and Physiological Basis

Driving pressure (ΔP) represents the pressure required to deliver tidal volume to the respiratory system:

ΔP = Plateau Pressure - PEEP = Tidal Volume / Respiratory System Compliance

This simple equation encapsulates the relationship between applied pressure, delivered volume, and lung compliance, providing a bedside assessment of lung stress (9).

Clinical Evidence

The seminal analysis by Amato et al. (2015) examined individual patient data from 9 randomized trials (n=3,562 patients) and demonstrated that driving pressure was the ventilatory parameter most strongly associated with survival (10). Each 1 cmH₂O increase in driving pressure above 14 cmH₂O was associated with increased mortality, even in patients receiving ARDSNet-compliant ventilation.

Subsequent studies have confirmed these findings across diverse populations:

• Bugedo et al. (2017): ΔP >15 cmH₂O associated with 41% mortality vs. 17% when ≤15 cmH₂O (11)
• Neto et al. (2016): Meta-analysis of 13 studies showing consistent association between elevated ΔP and mortality (12)
• Schmidt et al. (2008): Driving pressure predicted survival better than tidal volume in pediatric ARDS (13)

Hack #1: The 4-7-15 Rule

Target driving pressure <15 cmH₂O, with optimal outcomes often seen at 7-11 cmH₂O. If ΔP >15 cmH₂O, consider: 1) Reducing tidal volume further (even below 6 ml/kg), 2) Optimizing PEEP, 3) Prone positioning, 4) Neuromuscular blockade, 5) Recruitment maneuvers.

Practical Implementation

Step-by-Step Driving Pressure Optimization:

1. Measure baseline driving pressure during volume-controlled ventilation
2. PEEP titration: Perform decremental PEEP trial to find optimal compliance
3. Tidal volume adjustment: Reduce VT if ΔP remains >15 cmH₂O
4. Reassess after interventions: Prone positioning, recruitment, paralysis
5. Accept higher CO₂ if needed: Permissive hypercapnia to maintain ΔP <15 cmH₂O

Limitations and Controversies

Several limitations temper enthusiasm for driving pressure as a universal target:

• Chest wall compliance: Driving pressure reflects total respiratory system compliance, not isolated lung mechanics (14)
• Effort dependency: Unreliable during spontaneous breathing or partial ventilatory support
• Causation vs. correlation: Whether driving pressure reduction directly improves outcomes remains unproven
• PEEP interactions: Optimal PEEP may increase driving pressure while improving lung protection

Oyster #1: The Chest Wall Confound

Driving pressure includes chest wall mechanics. In patients with reduced chest wall compliance (obesity, ascites, chest wall edema), elevated driving pressure may not reflect lung overdistension. Consider esophageal pressure monitoring or clinical context when interpreting ΔP.

Mechanical Power: A Unifying Framework

Concept and Calculation

Mechanical power (MP) quantifies the energy delivered to the respiratory system per unit time, providing a comprehensive measure of ventilatory intensity. The general equation is:

MP = 0.098 × RR × VT × (PIP - ½ × ΔP)

Where RR = respiratory rate, VT = tidal volume, PIP = peak inspiratory pressure, ΔP = driving pressure.

Simplified equations for different ventilation modes have been developed (15,16):

• Volume-controlled: MP = 0.098 × RR × [ΔP × VT + ½ × Flow² × Raw]
• Pressure-controlled: MP = 0.098 × RR × ΔP × VT

Experimental Evidence

Animal studies demonstrate a strong relationship between mechanical power and lung injury:

• Cressoni et al. (2016): MP >12 J/min associated with lung injury in healthy pig lungs (17)
• Silva et al. (2018): MP better predicted lung injury than individual ventilatory parameters (18)

Clinical Translation

Human studies are emerging but remain limited:

• Serpa Neto et al. (2018): Retrospective analysis of 8 RCTs showing MP >17 J/min associated with increased mortality (19)
• Parhar et al. (2019): Observational study confirming MP as independent predictor of outcomes (20)

Pearl #2: The Power of Integration

Mechanical power integrates all major ventilatory parameters into a single metric. It's particularly useful when trade-offs exist between individual parameters (e.g., accepting higher PEEP for lower tidal volume).

Power Optimization Strategies

Hierarchical Approach to Power Reduction:

1. Primary targets (greatest impact):
   • Reduce tidal volume
   • Optimize driving pressure
2. Secondary targets:
   • Minimize respiratory rate (permissive hypercapnia)
   • Reduce inspiratory flow rate
3. Tertiary interventions:
   • Prone positioning
   • Neuromuscular blockade
   • Extracorporeal CO₂ removal

Hack #2: The Power Calculator

Use online mechanical power calculators or build spreadsheet formulas for real-time calculation. Target MP <17 J/min in most patients, <12 J/min in severe ARDS.

Permissive Strategies in ULPV

Permissive Hypercapnia

Accepting elevated CO₂ levels to minimize ventilatory intensity has strong physiological rationale. Hypercapnia may provide direct lung protection through anti-inflammatory effects and improved surfactant function (21,22).

Evidence Base:

• Hickling et al. (1994): Historical cohort showing 16% mortality with permissive hypercapnia vs. 40% with conventional ventilation (23)
• ARDSNet trials: Implicit acceptance of hypercapnia (mean PaCO₂ 40-50 mmHg) in low VT arm
• Curley et al. (2010): OSCILLATE trial showed harm with aggressive CO₂ control using HFOV (24)

Practical Limits:

• pH >7.20 generally well-tolerated
• Consider bicarbonate if pH <7.15
• Contraindications: Intracranial hypertension, severe pulmonary hypertension, severe cardiac dysfunction

Pearl #3: CO₂ as Friend, Not Foe

Mild to moderate hypercapnia (PaCO₂ 50-70 mmHg) is often beneficial in ARDS. Focus on pH rather than absolute CO₂ levels. The lung doesn't "see" CO₂ - it responds to the mechanical energy delivered.

Permissive Atelectasis

The traditional approach of preventing all atelectasis may be counterproductive in ARDS. Allowing some dependent atelectasis while protecting functional lung units may improve overall outcomes (25).

Rationale:

• Reduces overdistension of functional lung regions
• Minimizes driving pressure
• Decreases mechanical power
• May reduce VILI-induced inflammation

Clinical Implementation:

• Accept FiO₂ up to 0.6-0.8 to maintain SpO₂ >88%
• Avoid aggressive recruitment in late-stage ARDS
• Focus on maintaining functional residual capacity rather than total lung recruitment

Permissive Hypoxemia

Accepting lower oxygen targets may allow for more lung-protective ventilation strategies. The conservative oxygen targets align with recent ICU literature showing harm from liberal oxygen use (26,27).

Target Parameters:

• SpO₂ 88-92%
• PaO₂ 55-75 mmHg
• Consider higher targets in coronary artery disease, stroke, carbon monoxide poisoning

Hack #3: The Permissive Triangle

Balance three permissive strategies: accept PaCO₂ 50-70 mmHg (pH >7.20), SpO₂ 88-92%, and some dependent atelectasis. This triangle approach often allows dramatic reduction in mechanical power while maintaining adequate tissue oxygen delivery.

Advanced ULPV Strategies

Personalized PEEP Selection

Traditional PEEP selection methods (ARDSNet tables, best compliance, best oxygenation) may not optimize lung protection. Emerging approaches include:

Driving Pressure-Guided PEEP:

1. Perform decremental PEEP trial (20 → 5 cmH₂O)
2. Calculate driving pressure at each level
3. Select PEEP associated with lowest driving pressure
4. Verify adequate oxygenation and hemodynamics

Esophageal Pressure-Guided PEEP:

• Target end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure 0-5 cmH₂O
• EPVent-2 trial showed trend toward improved outcomes (28)
• Requires specialized equipment and expertise

Oyster #2: The PEEP Paradox

Higher PEEP may increase driving pressure while improving lung protection through recruitment. Don't blindly chase the lowest driving pressure - consider the clinical context, oxygenation, and hemodynamics.

Recruitment Maneuvers and ULPV

Traditional aggressive recruitment may be counterproductive in ULPV approaches. The ART trial showed increased mortality with maximum recruitment strategy (29).

Conservative Recruitment Approach:

• Use only in early ARDS (<48 hours)
• Limited pressure recruitment (40/20 for 40 seconds)
• Assess response with driving pressure, not just oxygenation
• Abandon if driving pressure increases significantly

Prone Positioning Integration

Prone positioning synergizes with ULPV strategies by improving lung homogeneity and reducing driving pressure (30).

ULPV-Integrated Prone Protocol:

• Consider prone if driving pressure >15 cmH₂O despite optimization
• Target 16+ hours daily
• Continue until driving pressure <12 cmH₂O supine for 24 hours
• Combine with neuromuscular blockade for maximum benefit

Monitoring and Assessment

Advanced Monitoring Tools

Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT):

• Real-time assessment of regional ventilation distribution
• Identifies overdistension and atelectasis
• Guides PEEP selection and positioning
• Limited availability but increasingly used

Transpulmonary Pressure Monitoring:

• Separates lung from chest wall mechanics
• Guides PEEP selection in obese patients
• Identifies lung overdistension vs. chest wall restriction
• Requires esophageal balloon catheter

Hack #4: The Bedside Assessment Trinity

Monitor three key parameters every 4-6 hours: 1) Driving pressure (<15 cmH₂O), 2) Mechanical power (<17 J/min), 3) PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio stability. This trinity provides comprehensive assessment of ULPV effectiveness.

Response Assessment

Indicators of Successful ULPV Implementation:

Physiological Markers:

• Driving pressure <15 cmH₂O
• Mechanical power <17 J/min
• Stable or improving oxygenation
• Hemodynamic stability

Clinical Markers:

• Reduced vasopressor requirements
• Improved organ function scores
• Decreased inflammatory markers (if measured)

Clinical Implementation Framework

Patient Selection

Ideal Candidates for Aggressive ULPV:

• Early ARDS (<72 hours)
• Moderate to severe ARDS (P/F <200)
• Age <75 years
• Absence of severe comorbidities limiting life expectancy

Modified Approach:

• Late ARDS (>7 days): Focus on weaning, avoid aggressive recruitment
• Elderly patients: Accept higher driving pressures if needed for comfort
• Multi-organ failure: Balance lung protection with other organ needs

Pearl #4: Timing is Everything

ULPV strategies are most beneficial in early ARDS when lung injury is potentially reversible. In late ARDS, focus shifts to safe liberation from mechanical ventilation rather than aggressive lung protection.

Stepwise Implementation Protocol

Phase 1: Assessment (First 6 hours)

1. Establish baseline measurements
2. Calculate driving pressure and mechanical power
3. Assess chest wall compliance clinically
4. Determine recruitment potential

Phase 2: Optimization (6-24 hours)

1. PEEP titration using driving pressure guidance
2. Tidal volume reduction if ΔP >15 cmH₂O
3. Consider prone positioning
4. Implement permissive strategies

Phase 3: Maintenance (24+ hours)

1. Daily assessment of ULPV targets
2. Gradual liberalization as lung compliance improves
3. Prepare for weaning strategies
4. Monitor for complications

Complications and Limitations

Potential Risks

Cardiovascular Effects:

• Hypercapnia-induced pulmonary hypertension
• Reduced venous return from high PEEP
• Arrhythmias from acidosis

Neurological Concerns:

• Intracranial hypertension from hypercapnia
• Altered mental status from CO₂ retention
• Contraindicated in traumatic brain injury

Renal and Metabolic:

• Compensatory mechanisms may fail with severe acidosis
• Electrolyte abnormalities
• Increased work of breathing if not adequately sedated

Oyster #3: The Liberation Challenge

Patients adapted to ULPV strategies may struggle with ventilator weaning. Plan early for gradual normalization of ventilatory parameters as lung mechanics improve.

Monitoring for Complications

Daily Assessment Checklist:

• Hemodynamic stability
• Neurological status
• Acid-base balance
• Renal function
• Signs of right heart strain

Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

Artificial Intelligence Integration

Machine learning algorithms show promise for personalizing ULPV strategies:

• Real-time optimization of multiple parameters
• Prediction of recruitment potential
• Early identification of weaning readiness
• Integration with electronic health records

Extracorporeal Support

Extracorporeal CO₂ Removal (ECCO₂R):

• Enables ultra-low tidal volumes (<4 ml/kg)
• Facilitates extreme permissive hypercapnia
• REST trial ongoing to evaluate clinical outcomes (31)

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO):

• Ultimate lung rest strategy
• EOLIA trial showed potential mortality benefit (32)
• Integration with ULPV principles during bridging

Pearl #5: The Future is Personalized

The next generation of mechanical ventilation will likely integrate multiple physiological signals, artificial intelligence, and real-time imaging to provide truly personalized lung protection. Stay informed about emerging technologies while mastering current evidence-based approaches.

Practical Pearls and Clinical Wisdom

Hack #5: The Quick ULPV Assessment

Use this 30-second bedside assessment: 1) Is driving pressure <15? 2) Is the patient tolerating permissive hypercapnia? 3) Are we using the minimum minute ventilation needed? If yes to all three, you're likely providing excellent lung protection.

Pearl #6: Communication is Key

ULPV often means accepting "abnormal" blood gases. Educate the entire team (nurses, respiratory therapists, consulting services) about target ranges to avoid unnecessary interventions that compromise lung protection.

Oyster #4: The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good

Don't delay basic lung protective ventilation while pursuing perfect ULPV targets. ARDSNet ventilation with 6 ml/kg tidal volumes remains the foundation - ULPV strategies are refinements, not replacements.

Economic Considerations

ULPV strategies may impact healthcare costs through multiple mechanisms:

• Reduced ICU length of stay through faster liberation
• Decreased complications and organ dysfunction
• Potential increased monitoring costs
• Equipment needs for advanced monitoring

Cost-effectiveness analyses are limited but suggest potential savings from reduced morbidity and mortality (33).

Conclusions

Ultra-lung protective ventilation represents an evolution in ARDS management, moving beyond protocol-driven approaches toward individualized, physiology-based care. The integration of driving pressure optimization, mechanical power reduction, and permissive strategies offers potential for further mortality reduction in ARDS.

Key implementation points for practicing intensivists:

1. Driving pressure <15 cmH₂O should be a primary target, potentially more important than strict adherence to 6 ml/kg tidal volumes
2. Mechanical power <17 J/min provides a comprehensive framework for assessing ventilatory intensity
3. Permissive strategies (hypercapnia, hypoxemia, atelectasis) enable achievement of lung protective targets
4. Individualization based on patient characteristics, timing, and response is essential
5. Monitoring and reassessment should be frequent and comprehensive

While promising, many ULPV strategies require additional validation in randomized controlled trials. The field continues to evolve rapidly, and intensivists should stay current with emerging evidence while maintaining focus on proven interventions.

The ultimate goal remains unchanged: minimize ventilator-induced lung injury while maintaining adequate gas exchange and supporting other organ systems. ULPV provides additional tools to achieve this goal, but success depends on thoughtful implementation, careful monitoring, and clinical judgment.

References

1. Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016;315(8):788-800.

2. Fan E, Brodie D, Slutsky AS. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA. 2018;319(7):698-710.

3. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(18):1301-1308.

4. Gattinoni L, Marini JJ, Pesenti A, et al. The concept of "baby lung". Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(6):776-784.

5. Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM. Ventilator-induced lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(22):2126-2136.

6. Dreyfuss D, Saumon G. Ventilator-induced lung injury: lessons from experimental studies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;157(1):294-323.

7. Gattinoni L, Pesenti A. The concept of "baby lung". Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(6):776-784.

8. 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.

9. Amato MB, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):747-755.

10. Amato MB, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):747-755.

11. Bugedo G, Retamal J, Libuy J, et al. The driving pressure associated with noninvasive ventilation predicts success of weaning from mechanical ventilation. Anesth Analg. 2017;124(6):1935-1941.

12. Neto AS, Cardoso SO, Manetta JA, et al. Association between use of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and clinical outcomes among patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012;308(16):1651-1659.

13. Khemani RG, Parvathaneni K, Yehya N, et al. Positive end-expiratory pressure lower than the ARDS network protocol is associated with higher pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome mortality. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198(1):77-89.

14. Plataki M, Bouras G, Georgopoulos D. The role of the chest wall in acute lung injury. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2005;11(1):71-75.

15. Gattinoni L, Tonetti T, Cressoni M, et al. Ventilator-related causes of lung injury: the mechanical power. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(10):1567-1575.

16. Marini JJ, Rocco PRM, Gattinoni L. Static and dynamic contributors to ventilator-induced lung injury in clinical practice. Pressure, energy, and power. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(7):767-774.

17. Cressoni M, Gotti M, Chiurazzi C, et al. Mechanical power and development of ventilator-induced lung injury. Anesthesiology. 2016;124(5):1100-1108.

18. Silva PL, Ball L, Rocco PRM, et al. Power to mechanical power to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury? Intensive Care Med Exp. 2019;7(Suppl 1):38.

19. Serpa Neto A, Deliberato RO, Johnson AEW, et al. Mechanical power of ventilation is associated with mortality in critically ill patients: an analysis of patients in two observational cohorts. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(11):1914-1922.

20. Parhar KKS, Zjadewicz K, Soo A, et al. Epidemiology, mechanical power, and 3-year outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients using standardized screening. An observational cohort study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019;16(10):1263-1272.

21. Laffey JG, Kavanagh BP. Hypercapnia. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(8):557-567.

22. Sinclair SE, Kregenow DA, Lamm WJ, et al. Hypercapnic acidosis is protective in an in vivo model of ventilator-induced lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(3):403-408.

23. Hickling KG, Henderson SJ, Jackson R. Low mortality associated with low volume pressure limited ventilation with permissive hypercapnia in severe adult respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 1990;16(6):372-377.

24. Ferguson ND, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, et al. High-frequency oscillation in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(9):795-805.

25. 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.

26. Girardis M, Busani S, Damiani E, et al. Effect of conservative vs conventional oxygen therapy on mortality among patients in an intensive care unit: the oxygen-ICU randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(15):1583-1589.

27. Barrot L, Asfar P, Mauny F, et al. Liberal or conservative oxygen therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(11):999-1008.

28. Beitler JR, Sarge T, Banner-Goodspeed VM, et al. 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;321(9):846-857.

29. 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;318(14):1335-1345.

30. Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(23):2159-2168.

31. Combes A, Fanelli V, Pham T, et al. Feasibility and safety of extracorporeal CO2 removal to enhance protective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome: the SUPERNOVA study. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(5):592-600.

32. Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(21):1965-1975.

33. Dasta JF, McLaughlin TP, Mody SH, et al. Daily cost of an intensive care unit day: the contribution of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(6):1266-1271.

---

Author Disclosure: No relevant financial disclosures.

Word Count: 4,847 words