One-Pager

ARDS

Berlin and Global definitions, lung-protective ventilation, PEEP, proning, paralysis, steroids, ECMO and the nursing care

Reviewed by Alex G, BSN, RN, CEN, CCRN, CMC, NREMT-P · Checked against current sources October 2026

Download one-page PDFLetter landscape, ready to print or keep with your notes

Definition and severity

Severity by P/F on PEEP ≥5: mild 201–300, moderate 101–200, severe ≤100 (Berlin mortality 27%, 32%, 45%).
CriterionBerlin 2012Global Definition 2024 adds
TimingWithin 1 week of an insult or new symptomsSame
ImagingBilateral opacities on CXR or CTBilateral B-lines or consolidation on ultrasound
EdemaNot fully explained by heart failure or overloadSame
OxygenationP/F ≤300 on PEEP ≥5SpO₂/FiO₂ ≤315 if SpO₂ ≤97%; HFNC ≥30 L/min or NIV/CPAP ≥5 count
Resource-limitedNot addressedSpO₂/FiO₂ ≤315; no PEEP or flow requirement

Causes and pathophysiology

Lung-protective ventilation (see Ventilator Modes)

PBW: men 50 kg, women 45.5 kg, + 2.3 kg per inch over 5 feet.
SettingTargetSource
Tidal volume6 mL/kg PBW (range 4–8); start 8, down 1 mL/kg every ≤2 hARMA: mortality 31.0% vs 39.8%
Plateau≤30 cm H₂O (0.5-s hold)ATS 2024 strong; SSC 2026 strong
Driving pressurePlateau − PEEP, aim under about 15Observational (Amato 2015); no guideline target
PEEPARDSNet lower table; higher table if P/F ≤200ATS 2024 conditional for higher; ESICM 2023 no recommendation
OxygenationSpO₂ 88–95% or PaO₂ 55–80 mm HgARDSNet
pH7.30–7.45; raise rate first (max 35)ARDSNet permissive hypercapnia

Adjuncts: what, when and the evidence

AdjunctWhenEvidence and guideline
ProneP/F <150 despite optimized settings; ≥16 h sessionsPROSEVA 28-day mortality 16.0% vs 32.8%; ATS 2024 strong (>12 h/day, severe); ESICM 2023 strong
Neuromuscular blockadeEarly (<48 h) severe ARDS if deeply sedated, or dyssynchrony; ≤48 hACURASYS HR 0.68; ROSE 42.5% vs 42.8% vs light sedation. ATS conditional for; ESICM against routine infusion
Recruitment maneuversNo prolonged maneuvers (≥35 cm H₂O for ≥1 min)ART: mortality 55.3% vs 49.3%, barotrauma 5.6% vs 1.6%; ATS and ESICM strong against
Conservative fluidsOnce out of shockFACTT: vent-free days 14.6 vs 12.1; mortality 25.5% vs 28.4% (NS)
CorticosteroidsModerate–severe, within 14 days of onsetDEXA-ARDS: 60-day mortality 21% vs 36%; ATS 2024 conditional for; RECOVERY (COVID, ventilated) 29.3% vs 41.4%
Inhaled NO or epoprostenolRescue for oxygenation or RV failure onlyBetter P/F at 24 h, no survival gain, more renal failure (Cochrane 2016)
VV-ECMOP/F <50 >3 h, <80 >6 h, or pH <7.25 with PaCO₂ ≥60 >6 h (see ECMO)EOLIA 35% vs 46% (p = 0.09); CESAR 37% vs 53%; ATS conditional, ESICM strong, at ECMO centers

Refractory hypoxemia: the usual order

  1. Confirm Vt 6 mL/kg PBW, plateau ≤30, tube position, no auto-PEEP; treat the cause
  2. Higher PEEP by table (moderate–severe); watch BP and the RV
  3. Prone ≥16 h while P/F stays <150
  4. Paralysis if deeply sedated or fighting the ventilator (≤48 h)
  5. Net-negative fluids; steroids if within 14 days
  6. Inhaled NO or epoprostenol as a bridge
  7. Call the ECMO center before EOLIA thresholds are met; no HFOV

Nursing care and monitoring

Exam pearls

Practice ARDS questions free in your browser59 exam-style questions with rationales. No account or download needed.

In depth

The one-page summary above is what the PDF prints. These sections go further.

Pathophysiology and phases

ARDS is diffuse inflammatory injury of the alveolar-capillary membrane. A direct insult (pneumonia, aspiration, inhalation, contusion) or an indirect one carried by the blood (sepsis, pancreatitis, transfusion, trauma) activates neutrophils and endothelium; the barrier leaks protein-rich fluid into the alveoli, surfactant is inactivated, and alveoli flood or collapse. The result is shunt, so PaO₂ responds poorly to FiO₂ alone, plus dead space from microthrombi that raises PaCO₂ for any minute ventilation.

The exudative phase occupies about the first 7 days: edema, hyaline membranes, neutrophil infiltration and the lowest compliance. The proliferative phase follows, lasting more than 3 weeks in survivors, with type II pneumocyte growth, fluid clearance and repair; most survivors improve here. A minority develop fibrosis within that phase, with collagen deposition, persistent low compliance, dead space and ventilator dependence (Matthay 2019).

CT scans reshaped the model. Gattinoni and Pesenti (2005) showed that the normally aerated tissue in most patients weighs about 300–500 g, the size of a 5- to 6-year-old's lung, and that compliance tracks the size of this 'baby lung' rather than the stiffness of the tissue. The ARDS lung is small rather than stiff, so the risk of a breath depends on tidal volume relative to the aerated lung, not on milliliters per kilogram. The baby lung is functional: densities redistribute when the patient is turned prone.

Definitions and phenotypes

Berlin (2012) required onset within one week of a known insult or new or worsening symptoms, bilateral opacities not fully explained by effusion, collapse or nodules, respiratory failure not fully explained by cardiac failure or fluid overload, and a P/F ≤300 mm Hg on PEEP or CPAP ≥5 cm H₂O. Its severity bands predicted mortality: mild 27%, moderate 32%, severe 45%, with median ventilation in survivors of 5, 7 and 9 days. Draft ancillary variables such as PEEP ≥10 for severe disease were dropped as unhelpful.

The 2024 Global Definition (Matthay and the ARDS Definition Task Force) kept the timing, imaging and edema criteria and extended the rest. Bilateral B-lines or consolidation on ultrasound by a trained operator now count as imaging. Patients on high-flow nasal oxygen at 30 L/min or more, or on NIV or CPAP with at least 5 cm H₂O, can have 'non-intubated ARDS' with P/F ≤300 or SpO₂/FiO₂ ≤315 (valid only when SpO₂ ≤97%). Intubated ARDS keeps a minimum PEEP of 5 with mild P/F 200–300 (S/F 235–315), moderate 100–200 (S/F 148–235) and severe ≤100 (S/F ≤148). Where blood gases, high-flow oxygen or ventilators are not routinely available, S/F ≤315 alone qualifies, with no PEEP or flow requirement.

The task force's reasons: high-flow oxygen use grew after FLORALI and during COVID-19, and in one COVID cohort 93% of patients intubated after high-flow therapy still met ARDS oxygenation criteria on the ventilator; blood gases are drawn less often; S/F imputes P/F well when SpO₂ ≤97%; and Berlin could not be applied where NIV or ventilators did not exist. They also note poor interrater reliability of chest radiographs, oximeters that miss hypoxemia in darker skin or shock, and under-recognition: in LUNG SAFE (Bellani 2016; 459 ICUs, 50 countries) clinicians recognized 51.3% of mild and 78.5% of severe ARDS, plateau was measured in 40.1%, and 16.3% of severe cases were proned. ARDS was 10.4% of ICU admissions and 23.4% of ventilated patients, with hospital mortality 34.9%, 40.3% and 46.1% by severity. ESICM 2023 kept the Berlin definition.

Phenotypes are the next step. Calfee (2014) applied latent class analysis to 473 ARMA and 549 ALVEOLI patients and found two classes in both: a hyperinflammatory phenotype (33% and 26%) with higher IL-6, IL-8, soluble TNF receptor-1 and PAI-1, more vasopressor use, lower bicarbonate, more sepsis and higher 90-day mortality (44% vs 23%, 51% vs 19%), and a hypoinflammatory one. In ALVEOLI the effect of higher PEEP differed by phenotype (interaction p = 0.049). Famous (2017) found the same split in FACTT (27% hyperinflammatory): the hypoinflammatory group did better with liberal fluids (mortality 18% vs 26% conservative) and the hyperinflammatory group with conservative fluids (40% vs 50% liberal; interaction p = 0.0039), and a three-variable model (IL-8, bicarbonate, soluble TNF receptor-1) classified patients. The Global Definition left phenotypes out until point-of-care assays validate them prospectively.

Mechanics and ventilator-induced lung injury

Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) has four mechanisms: volutrauma (overstretch of the baby lung), barotrauma (air leak), atelectrauma (cyclic opening and closing of unstable units) and biotrauma (the cytokine release that follows and injures other organs). Stress is the transpulmonary pressure applied to the lung; strain is the volume change relative to resting lung volume. A normal breath delivered to a small baby lung produces a large strain, which is why ARMA (2000; 861 patients) cut mortality from 39.8% to 31.0% with 6 mL/kg PBW and plateau ≤30 against 12 mL/kg and plateau ≤50, with 12 vs 10 ventilator-free days.

Driving pressure (plateau − PEEP) is tidal volume divided by respiratory-system compliance, so it scales the breath to the lung that is open. In Amato's 2015 analysis of 3,562 patients from nine trials, each standard deviation of driving pressure (about 7 cm H₂O) raised the relative risk of death by 1.41 (95% CI 1.31–1.51), even among patients already on protective Vt and plateau (RR 1.36), and changes in Vt or PEEP improved survival only when they lowered driving pressure (mediation p = 0.004 and 0.001). No trial has yet set ventilation by driving pressure, so 'under about 15' remains an observational target that ATS 2024 and ESICM 2023 do not endorse; ESICM lists it as a research gap.

Mechanical power (Gattinoni 2016) sums the energy per minute delivered by tidal volume, driving pressure, flow, PEEP and rate, computed from the equation of motion; it is a research tool without an agreed threshold. Plateau pressure is a poor stress estimate when the chest wall is stiff (obesity, ascites, burns), where a plateau above 30 may be safe and esophageal manometry (transpulmonary pressure = airway − esophageal pressure) separates lung from chest-wall load.

PEEP titration: methods and what the trials showed

PEEP keeps recruited alveoli open and improves oxygenation, but too much overdistends the open units, raises dead space and loads the right ventricle. The simplest method is the ARDSNet PEEP/FiO₂ tables (lower from ARMA, higher from ALVEOLI; see Ventilator Modes), stepped to SpO₂ 88–95% or PaO₂ 55–80 mm Hg. Alternatives titrate PEEP to the best compliance or lowest driving pressure on a decremental trial, to the highest PEEP that keeps plateau at 28–30 (ExPress), to a positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure by esophageal balloon (EPVent), by the recruitment-to-inflation ratio (a single-breath drop from PEEP 15 to 5 that estimates how much volume went to newly recruited lung), or by electrical impedance tomography, which maps regional ventilation and shows collapse against overdistension as PEEP changes. The last two have physiological but no outcome data.

Higher PEEP helps only in moderate–severe ARDS and only without prolonged recruitment maneuvers.
TrialDesignResult
ALVEOLI 2004n = 549; higher vs lower table (mean PEEP 13.2 vs 8.3)Hospital mortality 27.5% vs 24.9% (p = 0.48)
LOVS 2008n = 983; higher PEEP (14.6 vs 9.8), recruitment, plateau up to 40Mortality 36.4% vs 40.4% (p = 0.19); refractory hypoxemia 4.6% vs 10.2%
ExPress 2008n = 767; PEEP to plateau 28–30 vs PEEP 5–928-day mortality 27.8% vs 31.2% (p = 0.31); vent-free days 7 vs 3
Briel 2010Individual-patient meta-analysis, n = 2,299P/F ≤200: 34.1% vs 39.1% (RR 0.90, p = 0.049); no benefit if P/F >200
ART 2017n = 1,010; staircase recruitment, PEEP by best compliance28-day mortality 55.3% vs 49.3% (HR 1.20); barotrauma 5.6% vs 1.6%
EPVent-2 2019n = 200; esophageal-pressure PEEP vs high table28-day mortality 32.4% vs 30.6%; no difference

The guidelines read this evidence differently. ATS 2024 suggests higher PEEP without recruitment maneuvers rather than lower PEEP in moderate–severe ARDS (conditional, low to moderate certainty) and recommends against prolonged maneuvers of PEEP ≥35 cm H₂O for more than 60 s (strong, moderate), with no consensus on brief maneuvers or esophageal-pressure titration. ESICM 2023 makes no recommendation for or against a higher PEEP/FiO₂ strategy or mechanics-guided PEEP (high certainty of no effect), recommends against prolonged high-pressure maneuvers (strong) and suggests against routine brief ones (weak). SSC 2026 suggests higher PEEP in moderate–severe ARDS (conditional, moderate) and recommends against incremental PEEP titration (strong, moderate). ART's 6-month mortality was also worse (65.3% vs 59.9%).

Prone positioning: physiology and practice

Supine, the heart and abdomen compress the dorsal lung, where most lung mass and perfusion sit, so dorsal units collapse while ventral units overdistend. Prone, ventilation becomes more homogeneous from front to back, perfusion barely changes, and shunt falls. The mortality benefit comes from more uniform stress and strain (less VILI) rather than from the oxygenation gain, which is why patients whose P/F barely improves still benefit.

PROSEVA (Guérin 2013; 466 patients) enrolled patients with P/F <150 on FiO₂ ≥0.6, PEEP ≥5 and Vt near 6 mL/kg PBW after a stabilization period, and proned them in sessions of at least 16 h. 28-day mortality was 16.0% vs 32.8% (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.25–0.63) and 90-day mortality 23.6% vs 41.0% (HR 0.44). Complications did not differ except cardiac arrests, more frequent in the supine group. Earlier trials proned less severe patients for fewer hours and found no benefit.

ESICM 2023 recommends prone over supine positioning for moderate–severe ARDS, defined as P/F <150 on PEEP ≥5 despite optimized settings, started early after intubation once a stabilization period confirms P/F is still <150, in sessions of 16 consecutive hours or more (strong, high certainty), and extends the recommendation to COVID-19 ARDS. ATS 2024 keeps its 2017 wording: prone positioning for more than 12 h per day in severe ARDS (strong, moderate certainty). SSC 2026 suggests more than 12 h daily in moderate–severe ARDS (conditional, moderate). In LUNG SAFE only 16.3% of severe ARDS patients were proned, so under-use, not the evidence, is the gap.

Neuromuscular blockade and sedation

Paralysis removes dyssynchrony, double-triggering and the large spontaneous efforts that add to transpulmonary pressure (patient self-inflicted lung injury) and lowers oxygen consumption. ACURASYS (Papazian 2010; 340 patients, P/F <150 within 48 h of onset) gave cisatracurium for 48 h: adjusted 90-day hazard ratio for death 0.68 (95% CI 0.48–0.98), crude 90-day mortality 31.6% vs 40.7% (p = 0.08), 28-day mortality 23.7% vs 33.3%, no excess ICU-acquired weakness. ROSE (Moss 2019; 1,006 patients, P/F <150 on PEEP ≥8, enrolled a median of 7.6 h after onset) repeated the regimen with deep sedation against usual care with lighter sedation and stopped for futility: 90-day mortality 42.5% vs 42.8%, with less physical activity and more cardiovascular adverse events when paralyzed.

The difference was the comparator: ACURASYS compared paralysis with deep sedation, ROSE with light sedation. ATS 2024 draws that conclusion: its meta-analysis (7 trials, 1,598 patients; RR 0.74) found the benefit against deep sedation (RR 0.72) and none against light (RR 0.99), so it suggests neuromuscular blockade in early (<48 h) severe (P/F ≤100) ARDS for patients already deeply sedated, or lightly sedated patients with dyssynchrony and deterioration that ventilator and sedation changes do not fix, limited to 48 h, with cisatracurium as used in the two largest trials (conditional, low certainty). ESICM 2023 recommends against routine continuous infusions in moderate–severe ARDS (strong, moderate); SSC 2026 suggests intermittent boluses over an infusion (conditional, moderate).

At the bedside, deep sedation must be confirmed before the first dose and maintained throughout, because the patient cannot signal distress. Monitor train-of-four, lubricate and close the eyes, keep the head of bed up and protect skin and heels. Once the blocker stops, return to light sedation (PADIS 2018: RASS −2 to +1, analgesia first; see Sedation Scales) and resume daily awakening and breathing trials.

Fluids, steroids and the pharmacologic trials

FACTT (2006; 1,000 patients) compared conservative and liberal fluid protocols for 7 days once shock had resolved. Cumulative balance was −136 vs +6,992 mL, 60-day mortality 25.5% vs 28.4% (not significant), ventilator-free days 14.6 vs 12.1 and ICU-free days 13.4 vs 11.2, without more shock or nonpulmonary organ failure. Conservative fluids after resuscitation are therefore standard, with the phenotype caveat from Famous above.

Corticosteroids blunt the inflammatory and fibroproliferative response. DEXA-ARDS (Villar 2020; 277 patients, P/F ≤200 on PEEP ≥10 and FiO₂ ≥0.5 at 24 h) gave dexamethasone 20 mg daily for 5 days then 10 mg for 5 days: 4.8 more ventilator-free days and 60-day mortality 21% vs 36%, hyperglycemia 76% vs 70%, no excess infection. In COVID-19, RECOVERY (2020; 2,104 vs 4,321) gave dexamethasone 6 mg daily for up to 10 days: 28-day mortality 22.9% vs 25.7% overall, 29.3% vs 41.4% in ventilated patients (rate ratio 0.64), 23.3% vs 26.2% on oxygen alone, and no benefit (17.8% vs 14.0%) without oxygen. LaSRS (Steinberg 2006; 180 patients, ARDS ≥7 days) found methylprednisolone did not change 60-day mortality (29.2% vs 28.6%) and raised it when started 14 days or more after onset, with more neuromuscular weakness.

ATS 2024 suggests corticosteroids for ARDS (conditional, moderate certainty; 19 trials, mortality RR 0.84) but names no agent or course, notes that starting more than 2 weeks after onset may harm and that many trials stopped the drug at extubation, and asks for surveillance for hyperglycemia (RR 1.11) and infection. ESICM 2023 did not address steroids; SSC 2026 suggests them for septic shock without an ARDS statement.

The failures are an exam theme. Simvastatin 80 mg (HARP-2 2014; 540 patients: 28-day mortality 22.0% vs 26.8%) and rosuvastatin (SAILS 2014; 745 patients: 28.5% vs 24.9%, with fewer hepatic- and renal-failure-free days) did not help. Aspirin did not prevent ARDS in at-risk emergency patients (LIPS-A 2016; 390 patients: 10.3% vs 8.7%). Inhaled nitric oxide raises P/F at 24 h but not survival (Cochrane 2016: mortality RR 1.04) and increases renal failure (RR 1.59), so inhaled NO and epoprostenol are rescue for oxygenation or RV failure. High-frequency oscillation raised mortality in OSCILLATE (2013; 548 patients: 47% vs 35%), and ATS 2024 keeps its strong recommendation against routine use. ARDS still has no drug.

ECMO and extracorporeal CO₂ removal

VV-ECMO oxygenates venous blood and removes CO₂ across a membrane so the ventilator can rest the lung (EOLIA: plateau ≤24, PEEP ≥10, rate 10–30, FiO₂ 0.3–0.5; see ECMO). CESAR (Peek 2009; 180 patients, Murray score >3.0 or pH <7.20) randomized transfer to one ECMO center against conventional care: survival without severe disability at 6 months 63% vs 47% (death or severe disability 37% vs 53%), though only 75% of the ECMO arm received ECMO and the control arm had no ventilation protocol. EOLIA (Combes 2018; 249 patients) enrolled P/F <50 for more than 3 h, P/F <80 for more than 6 h, or pH <7.25 with PaCO₂ ≥60 for more than 6 h despite optimized ventilation: 60-day mortality 35% vs 46% (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55–1.04, p = 0.09), with 28% of controls crossing over as rescue, of whom 57% died; ECMO caused more transfusion-requiring bleeding (46% vs 28%) but fewer ischemic strokes (0% vs 5%).

ATS 2024 suggests VV-ECMO in selected severe ARDS (conditional, low certainty): reversible disease, P/F <80 or pH <7.25 with PaCO₂ ≥60 despite optimal conventional management, less than 7 days of ARDS and few futility risk factors, after the less invasive therapies, in high-volume centers (pooled mortality RR 0.76). ESICM 2023 recommends ECMO for patients meeting EOLIA criteria in a center with defined organizational standards (strong, moderate; pooled RR 0.72). SSC 2026 suggests VV-ECMO when conventional ventilation fails, in experienced centers (conditional, low). EOLIA's crossovers teach the timing: call early, because transfer takes hours.

Extracorporeal CO₂ removal uses lower blood flows to clear CO₂ so tidal volume can fall below 6 mL/kg. REST (McNamee 2021; 412 of a planned 1,120 patients) stopped for futility: 90-day mortality 41.5% vs 39.5%, ventilator-free days 7.1 vs 9.2, serious adverse events 31% vs 9%, intracranial hemorrhage 9 vs 0. ESICM 2023 recommends against ECCO₂R outside trials (strong).

Outcomes and recovery

Mortality tracks severity (Berlin and LUNG SAFE figures above). Most deaths come from multiorgan failure and the underlying illness rather than refractory hypoxemia. Herridge (2011) followed 109 survivors for 5 years: the 6-minute walk distance was 436 m, 76% of predicted, and the SF-36 physical component score 41 against a matched norm of 50; younger patients recovered faster but neither group returned to predicted physical function, pulmonary function was normal to near-normal, and health-care use and costs stayed high. Physical and psychological problems persisted in patients and family caregivers.

Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) names the new or worsened physical (ICU-acquired weakness, dyspnea), cognitive (memory, attention) and mental health (depression, anxiety, PTSD) problems that follow critical illness; PICS-family is the relatives' distress. Deep sedation, immobility, delirium and steroids plus paralysis are the modifiable risks; awakening and breathing trials, early mobility, family presence and ICU diaries are the prevention (see Sedation Scales). Follow-up clinics and rehabilitation belong in the discharge plan.

Exam pearls

Practice free in your browser3,800+ exam-style questions with rationales. No account, no ads. Also free on the App Store and Google Play.

Related one-pagers

Calculators for this topic

Sources

  1. Qadir N, Sahetya S, Munshi L, et al. An Update on Management of Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024;209(1):24–36. doi:10.1164/rccm.202311-2011ST Link
  2. Grasselli G, Calfee CS, Camporota L, et al. ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies. Intensive Care Med. 2023;49(7):727–759. doi:10.1007/s00134-023-07050-7 Link
  3. Matthay MA, Arabi Y, Arroliga AC, et al.; ARDS Definition Task Force. A New Global Definition of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024;209(1):37–47. doi:10.1164/rccm.202303-0558WS Link
  4. ARDS Definition Task Force; Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition. JAMA. 2012;307(23):2526–2533. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.5669 Link
  5. 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 (ARMA). N Engl J Med. 2000;342(18):1301–1308. doi:10.1056/NEJM200005043421801 Link
  6. NIH NHLBI ARDS Clinical Network (ARDSNet). Mechanical Ventilation Protocol Summary. 2008. Link
  7. Prescott HC, Antonelli M, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2026. Crit Care Med. 2026. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000007075 (SCCM guideline page). Link
  8. Brower RG, Lanken PN, MacIntyre N, et al.; NHLBI ARDS Clinical Trials Network. Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressures in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALVEOLI). N Engl J Med. 2004;351(4):327–336. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa032193 Link
  9. 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 (LOVS). JAMA. 2008;299(6):637–645. doi:10.1001/jama.299.6.637 Link
  10. Mercat A, Richard JC, Vielle B, et al. Positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ExPress). JAMA. 2008;299(6):646–655. doi:10.1001/jama.299.6.646 Link
  11. Briel M, Meade M, Mercat A, et al. Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2010;303(9):865–873. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.218 Link
  12. Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial (ART) Investigators; 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. JAMA. 2017;318(14):1335–1345. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.14171 Link
  13. 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 (EPVent-2). JAMA. 2019;321(9):846–857. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.0555 Link
  14. Amato MBP, 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. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1410639 Link
  15. Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PROSEVA). N Engl J Med. 2013;368(23):2159–2168. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1214103 Link
  16. Papazian L, Forel JM, Gacouin A, et al. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome (ACURASYS). N Engl J Med. 2010;363(12):1107–1116. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1005372 Link
  17. Moss M, Huang DT, Brower RG, et al.; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PETAL Clinical Trials Network. Early Neuromuscular Blockade in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ROSE). N Engl J Med. 2019;380(21):1997–2008. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1901686 Link
  18. Wiedemann HP, Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, et al.; NHLBI ARDS Clinical Trials Network. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury (FACTT). N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):2564–2575. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062200 Link
  19. Villar J, Ferrando C, Martínez D, et al. Dexamethasone treatment for the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (DEXA-ARDS). Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(3):267–276. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30417-5 Link
  20. Steinberg KP, Hudson LD, Goodman RB, et al.; NHLBI ARDS Clinical Trials Network. Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for persistent acute respiratory distress syndrome (LaSRS). N Engl J Med. 2006;354(16):1671–1684. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa051693 Link
  21. RECOVERY Collaborative Group; Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, et al. Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(8):693–704. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2021436 Link
  22. Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, et al. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (EOLIA). N Engl J Med. 2018;378(21):1965–1975. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800385 Link
  23. Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, et al. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9698):1351–1363. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61069-2 Link
  24. McNamee JJ, Gillies MA, Barrett NA, et al. Effect of Lower Tidal Volume Ventilation Facilitated by Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Removal vs Standard Care Ventilation on 90-Day Mortality in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure (REST). JAMA. 2021;326(11):1013–1023. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.13374 Link
  25. Calfee CS, Delucchi K, Parsons PE, et al. Subphenotypes in acute respiratory distress syndrome: latent class analysis of data from two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(8):611–620. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70097-9 Link
  26. Famous KR, Delucchi K, Ware LB, et al. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Subphenotypes Respond Differently to Randomized Fluid Management Strategy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(3):331–338. doi:10.1164/rccm.201603-0645OC Link
  27. Herridge MS, Tansey CM, Matté A, et al. Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(14):1293–1304. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1011802 Link