Respiratory failure & ventilation
Lung-protective ventilation strategy in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a critical reappraisal of current practice
An erratum to this article was published (Crit Care, 29 May 2026 ↗)
Authors' conclusion
There is no conclusive evidence to support the superiority of 6 mL/kg over intermediate VTs (7-10 mL/kg).
Study context
- Population
- Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)5 RCTs reviewed
- Comparison
- Low VT vs traditional high VT ventilation
- Outcome
- Survival with low vs high VT ventilation
Methodological detailscritical reappraisal
- Critical reappraisal
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- Two of five RCTs showed favourable outcomes, notably the ARDS Network trial (VT 6 mL/kg predicted body weight)
- The two positive trials used a greater VT contrast (6 vs 12 mL/kg) than the others (7-11 mL/kg) and methodological extremes
- No conclusive evidence that 6 mL/kg is superior to intermediate VTs (7-10 mL/kg)
Original publication
Lung-protective ventilation strategy in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a critical reappraisal of current practice. Crit Care. Published 21 October 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →