Abstract
Assessing and quantifying recruitability are important for characterizing ARDS severity and for reducing or preventing the atelectrauma caused by the cyclic opening and closing of pulmonary units. Over the years, several methods for recruitment assessment have been developed, grouped into three main approaches: 1) Quantitative CT Scanning: This method accurately measures the amount of atelectatic lung tissue that regains aeration; 2) Regional Gas Volume Measurement: Based on anatomical markers, this approach assesses gas volume within a specified lung region; 3) Compliance-Based Gas Volume Measurement: This technique compares actual gas volume at a given pressure to expected values, assuming respiratory system compliance is constant within the explored pressure range. Additional methods, such as lung ultrasonography and electrical impedance variation, have also been explored. This paper details the distribution of opening and closing pressures throughout the lung parenchyma, which underpin the concept of recruitability. The distribution of recruitable regions corresponds to atelectasis distribution, with the pressure needed for recruitment varying according to whether the atelectasis is “loose” or “sticky.” We also discuss the effects of different PEEP levels on preventing atelectrauma, the importance of keeping some lung areas closed throughout the respiratory cycle, and briefly cover the roles of sigh ventilation, prone positioning, and the closed lung approach.
Key Points
- Methods of Assessing Lung Recruitment: Three main techniques exist for evaluating lung recruitment: quantitative CT scanning to measure aeration changes, regional gas volume measurement using anatomical markers, and compliance-based gas volume estimation, which assesses lung inflation relative to predicted compliance.
- Opening and Closing Pressures: Lung recruitment is driven by opening pressures, which vary based on lung region and pathophysiological characteristics. Most lung units open at 20–25 cmH₂O, but full recruitment requires pressures as high as 40–45 cmH₂O, while closing pressures are generally lower.
- Heterogeneity in Atelectasis Distribution: Lung recruitment depends on the distribution of atelectasis, which can be categorized as “loose” (compressive atelectasis requiring lower opening pressures) or “sticky” (resorptive atelectasis requiring higher pressures), with a portion of consolidated lung tissue that remains non-recruitable.
- Quantitative CT for Recruitment Assessment: CT remains the gold standard for evaluating lung recruitment by measuring changes in lung density and aeration. It allows differentiation between recruitable lung regions and areas at risk of overdistension.
- Bedside Methods for Estimating Recruitment: Gas volume-based techniques, EIT, and lung ultrasound offer practical bedside alternatives to CT but have limitations in differentiating recruitment from hyperinflation. These methods primarily infer lung recruitment based on changes in compliance, gas exchange, or regional aeration patterns.
- Clinical Implications of Recruitment Assessment: Understanding recruitability is critical for setting optimal PEEP levels, balancing lung recruitment against the risks of volutrauma and hemodynamic instability. Patients with higher recruitability often benefit from PEEP, whereas those with lower recruitability may experience overdistension.
- Limitations of Recruitment Maneuvers: Recruitment maneuvers, particularly high-pressure sustained inflation, carry risks of hemodynamic compromise and barotrauma, leading to conflicting recommendations regarding their routine use in ARDS management.
- Prone Positioning and Lung Recruitment: Prone positioning redistributes lung aeration by opening dorsal lung units while potentially closing ventral ones. While it does not always enhance overall recruitment, it improves ventilation-perfusion matching and lung homogeneity, reducing ventilator-induced lung injury.
- Sigh Ventilation as an Alternative Approach: Intermittent deep breaths (“sighs”) may help prevent alveolar collapse while minimizing excessive PEEP. This strategy maintains lung volume with fewer hemodynamic side effects compared to sustained recruitment maneuvers.
- Future Directions in Recruitment Assessment: Research is needed to refine bedside recruitment assessment techniques, integrate them into personalized mechanical ventilation strategies, and better differentiate between beneficial lung recruitment and harmful overinflation.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
