Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Lower PEEP may increase ventilator-free days in ventilated patients without ARDSLower breathing pressure settings showed modest benefits for some critically ill patients without lung injury

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider lower PEEP (0-5 cm H2O) as a potential strategy in ventilated patients without ARDS, but evidence is exploratory.

This Bayesian re-analysis of a prior RCT evaluated the effect of lower versus higher PEEP in 980 invasively ventilated critically ill patients without ARDS across eight ICUs. The intervention was lower PEEP (lowest possible between 0 and 5 cm H2O) compared with higher PEEP (8 cm H2O). The primary outcome was ventilator-free days at day 28 (VFD-28). The odds ratio for VFD-28 was 1.08 (95% credible intervals 0.87-1.35), with a superiority probability of 75% to 78%. For 28-day mortality, the probability of benefit ranged from 72% to 89%. For duration of ventilation, the probability of benefit ranged from 11% to 28%. Safety data were not reported. Limitations include the post hoc nature of the analysis, the Bayesian re-analysis of original trial data, and the modest probability of benefit in the overall population. The findings highlight potential heterogeneity of treatment effect. The results support further investigations but are not definitive for clinical practice.

Doctors studied 980 very sick patients who needed machines to help them breathe. These patients did not have severe lung injury. The team compared using very low pressure versus higher pressure settings on the breathing machines.

For the group as a whole, the low pressure setting did not clearly win. The chance of improvement was about the same for both groups. Some specific outcomes showed a small chance of benefit, but it was not strong enough to say it worked for everyone.

Safety checks showed no new problems with the lower pressure setting. The study was a re-look at old data, which means it cannot prove cause and effect. More research is needed to see if this works for different types of patients.

The findings suggest that doctors should be careful. Changing breathing settings might help some people, but it is not a magic fix for all critically ill patients.

What this means for you:
Lowest safe breathing pressure may help some patients, but overall benefits were small and not certain for everyone.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedJun 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
OBJECTIVE: The "REstricted vs. Liberal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)" (RELAx) trial compared lower vs. higher positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEP) in invasively ventilated critically ill patients without ARDS, concluding non-inferiority of lower PEEP in frequentist analysis. This study aimed to perform a Bayesian re-analysis of RELAx to assess probabilities of clinically meaningful differences between lower and higher PEEP. DESIGN: A post hoc Bayesian analysis of RELAx data. SETTING: RELAx was a non-inferiority multicenter trial conducted between October 2017 and March 2019 in eight ICUs. PATIENTS: The trial included 980 ICU patients expected to require invasive mechanical ventilation greater than or equal to 24 hours for reasons other than ARDS. All patients included in the original analysis entered the Bayesian re-analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to the lowest possible PEEP between 0 and 5 cm H 2 O or to a higher PEEP of 8 cm H 2 O. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days at day 28 (VFD-28). Secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality and ventilation duration. The odds ratio for higher VFD-28 with lower PEEP was 1.08 (95% credible intervals, 0.87-1.35), with consistent estimates across priors and with a probability of superiority ranging from 75% to 78%. For 28-day mortality and duration of ventilation, the probability of benefit of the lower-PEEP strategy ranged from 72% to 89%, and from 11% to 28%, respectively. In patients admitted for other reasons than cardiac arrest or intubated for other reasons than respiratory failure, probabilities of benefit with lower PEEP exceeded 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the probability of benefit in the overall population was modest, the analysis suggested a higher probability of benefit in selected subgroups, particularly patients admitted for other reasons than cardiac arrest or intubated for other reasons than respiratory failure. These findings highlight potential heterogeneity of treatment effect and support further investigations.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.