Skip to main content
Download PDF

Time-Controlled Adaptive Ventilation (TCAV): a personalized strategy for lung protection

Respiratory Research volume 25, Article number: 37 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) alters the dynamics of lung inflation during mechanical ventilation. Repetitive alveolar collapse and expansion (RACE) predisposes the lung to ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Two broad approaches are currently used to minimize VILI: (1) low tidal volume (LVT) with low-moderate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP); and (2) open lung approach (OLA). The LVT approach attempts to protect already open lung tissue from overdistension, while simultaneously resting collapsed tissue by excluding it from the cycle of mechanical ventilation. By contrast, the OLA attempts to reinflate potentially recruitable lung, usually over a period of seconds to minutes using higher PEEP used to prevent progressive loss of end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and RACE. However, even with these protective strategies, clinical studies have shown that ARDS-related mortality remains unacceptably high with a scarcity of effective interventions over the last two decades. One of the main limitations these varied interventions demonstrate to benefit is the observed clinical and pathologic heterogeneity in ARDS. We have developed an alternative ventilation strategy known as the Time Controlled Adaptive Ventilation (TCAV) method of applying the Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) mode, which takes advantage of the heterogeneous time- and pressure-dependent collapse and reopening of lung units. The TCAV method is a closed-loop system where the expiratory duration personalizes VT and EELV. Personalization of TCAV is informed and tuned with changes in respiratory system compliance (CRS) measured by the slope of the expiratory flow curve during passive exhalation. Two potentially beneficial features of TCAV are: (i) the expiratory duration is personalized to a given patient’s lung physiology, which promotes alveolar stabilization by halting the progressive collapse of alveoli, thereby minimizing the time for the reopened lung to collapse again in the next expiration, and (ii) an extended inspiratory phase at a fixed inflation pressure after alveolar stabilization gradually reopens a small amount of tissue with each breath. Subsequently, densely collapsed regions are slowly ratcheted open over a period of hours, or even days. Thus, TCAV has the potential to minimize VILI, reducing ARDS-related morbidity and mortality.

Graphical Abstract

Introduction

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains a significant clinical problem, with primary management being supportive mechanical ventilation [1]. However, mechanical ventilation itself has the potential to be damaging by causing ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), which significantly increases ARDS-related mortality [2]. Current “protective” ventilation strategies are aimed at reducing VILI; however recent studies indicate that current lung protective ventilation strategies have not reduced ARDS-associated mortality [3,4,5,6]. The reasons for this remain unclear, but there are obvious limitations to mechanical ventilation in ARDS based on clinical trials addressing “one-size-fits-all” approaches applied to a heterogeneous patient population. For example, the use of a tidal volume (VT) of 6 mL kg−1 of ideal body weight (IBW) might be safer than 12 mL kg1 on average, although it is highly unlikely that 6 mL kg−1 is optimal for any given patient. Thus, there is an urgent need to find alternative, personalized approaches to mechanically ventilating the injured lung that takes individual patient pathophysiology into account. Devising such a personalized approach to ventilation starts with an understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of ARDS.

A breach of the blood-gas barrier in ARDS allows protein-rich fluid to accumulate in the distal airspaces of the lung, where it inactivates pulmonary surfactant. This surfactant dysfunction increases surface tension at the air–liquid interface, with major consequences for alveolar and acinar inflation [7,8,9,10,11]. An early [and still prevailing] concept is that the lung becomes separated into two functionally distinct compartments along the gravitational axis. In gravitationally dependent regions where edema fluid accumulates and the most severe surfactant dysfunction occurs, alveoli and small airways collapse and/or become filled with fluid, to form atelectatic regions that do not participate in gas exchange. In non-dependent regions, which are largely devoid of edema, the parenchyma remains essentially normal and can be ventilated. This ventilated compartment, however, is reduced in volume compared to the whole lung, thus being referred to as the “baby lung” [12]. More recent experimental work, informed by imaging with paired high-resolution computerized tomography (CT) and Helium magnetic resonance imaging provide sub-acinar resolution in human and animal studies, has made it clear that the situation is more complex than implied by this simple binary compartmentalization [10, 13,14,15,16]. In particular, tissues at the interface between open and cyclically closed regions are particularly susceptible as mechanisms of VILI [overdistension and repetitive alveolar collapse and expansion (RACE)] amplify and propagate due to anisotropic distortions [17]. This damaging RACE during mechanical ventilation are phenomena that depend on both time as well as pressure [18, 19], and should be considered when designing protective and personalized ventilation strategies.

In this review, we will examine the mechanistic underpinnings of conventional ventilation strategies for ARDS that are presumed to be protective. We then describe an alternative, but promising, strategy that has the potential to be both protective and personalized, by accounting for the time and pressure dependencies of RACE.

Conventional protective ventilation strategies

Low tidal volume approach

The original ARDS Network (ARDSNet) low tidal volume (LVT) approach (i.e., 6 mL kg−1 of IBW) is to protect the normal lung from overdistension injury (volutrauma). Persistently collapsed lung tissue is allowed to ‘rest’ by remaining unventilated [12, 20, 21]. This LVT approach also strives to keep plateau airway pressure (Pplat) less than 30 cmH2O with the application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) guided by oxygenation necessary to prevent progressive loss of end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and minimize RACE-induced atelectrauma [20, 22].

Currently, the LVT approach is the standard of care for patients with ARDS. However, ARDS-related mortality remains unacceptably high and has shown little or no improvement with LVT [3,4,5,6]. For example, the 2,587 patients that were eligible but not enrolled for technical reasons from the 2000 ARMA trial, [but nevertheless treated with the prior standard of care VT of approximately 10 mL kg−1] [23] were analyzed by Deans et al. [24] and found to have the same mortality as the LVT group. Also, VT of 12 mL kg−1 was not always associated with increased mortality, nor was LVT always associated with lower mortality. Rather, raising VT increased mortality (42% vs. 29%) in patients with low respiratory system compliance (CRS), but reduced mortality (21% vs. 37%) in those with higher CRS [24]. So, lung protection or injury is not dictated solely by the size of VT. It also depends on the extent of inflatable tissue, indicated by CRS, that receives VT, along with the seriousness of lung pathophysiology [25]. A more recent study reviewing ARDS mortality in 18 intensive care units (ICUs) showed that patients receiving VT of 4–6 mL kg−1 had a higher rate of mortality than those receiving 6–10 mL kg.−1[26].

More recently, it has been shown that driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) are better surrogates for VILI than the size of the VT [27]. To maintain ΔP and MP within the safe range, adjustments are made at the ventilator using lower VT and reducing peak (Ppeak) and plateau airway pressures. By simply ‘treating the ventilator’ (changes VT and airway pressures) the physician is constrained to ventilating a collapsed, heterogeneously injured lung. A better idea would be to fully reopen the lung, removing the constraints of ventilating a heterogeneously injured lung, and lower ΔP by increasing CRS, since ΔP = VT/CRS. An approach to accomplish this goal will be discussed in the “A Personalized Approach to Mechanical Ventilation” section below.

The lack of meaningful ARDS mortality reduction with LVT can be potentially explained by several factors. One factor is the application of PEEP does not prevent the gradual de-recruitment of lung regions due to the transience of the open lung compartment. Lung recruitment may initially occur following the application of high airway pressure, such as during a sigh breath; however, lung collapse can gradually recur over time. This led Marini and Gattinoni to describe the “VILI Vortex” in which continued shrinking of the baby lung places increasing strain on the remaining aerated tissue [28, 29], leading eventually to the need for rescue strategies such as high-frequency ventilation (HFOV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (Fig. 1). Further, overdistension of the baby lung may not be the primary mechanism driving VILI, because normal lung tissue is highly resistant to injurious overdistension [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. By contrast, overdistension, and diffuse micro-atelectasis are clustered in adjacent lung regions and highly damaging in the presence of RACE [22], not only to the unstable or collapsed alveoli but also to the adjacent alveoli that share alveolar walls (Additional file 1, Additional file 2) [8,9,10, 17, 39, 40], These phenomena cannot be observed on chest radiograph or standard CT imaging with a conventional breath hold [11].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Reproduced from Reference [29], under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

An ever-shrinking, baby lung, known as a VILI Vortex has been used to describe the evolution of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) [28]. Upper left: The ‘patient’ with mostly open lung tissue (pink) and a lesser amount of collapsed tissue (red) defined as Mild ARDS is placed on ARDSnet LVT ventilation. The LVT and low airway pressures strategy is designed to ‘rest’ the ‘baby lung’, however, this ventilation method allows the acutely injured tissue to continually collapse pushing it into the VILI Vortex. Lung pathogenesis moves from Mild to Moderate ARDS as normal tissue progressively shrinks (pink → red), Disease progression into Severe ARDS is inevitable if unchecked at which point rescue methods such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be necessary. ARDS causes the lung to become time and pressure dependent. This means that it will take more time for the alveoli to open and less time for them to collapse at any given airway pressure. Thus, the alveolar opening can be accelerated by an extended inspiratory time, and alveolar collapse minimized by a short expiratory time. The brief time at inspiration is not adequate to open collapsed alveoli while the extended time at expiration will not prevent alveolar collapse using the ARDSnet approach (Upper left Protect the Lung, Ventilator Monitor blue Pressure/Time curve). The open lung approach to rapidly reopen the lung (seconds or minutes) using recruitment maneuvers and higher PEEP has not been successful at reducing ARDS-related mortality. Using inspiratory and expiratory duration in addition to pressure to open and stabilize alveoli has been shown very effective and lung protective by our group and others [19, 72, 75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91]. An extended inspiratory time will progressively recruit alveoli and a brief expiratory time will prevent re-collapse. A correctly set time-controlled ventilator method will stabilize alveoli (Center, Stabilize the Lung, Ventilator Monitor blue Pressure/Time curve) using a short expiratory time pulling the lung from the Vortex. Once progressive lung collapse is halted, collapsed tissue can be reopened slowly (Red lung tissue turning pink) over hours or days depending on the level of lung pathophysiology [19, 72, 75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91]. This figure depicts the ability of TCAV to be used after ARDS has developed or as a rescue mode but if applied early during mild ARDS movement of the lung into the Vortex could be prevented.

Full size image

The presence of persistent collapsed lung tissue can lead to other pathologies or pathophysiologic processes, such as fibrosing alveolitis [41, 42], increased pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), patient/ventilator asynchrony, surfactant inactivation, right ventricular strain, and/or right ventricular failure [43]. Although ‘resting’ the collapsed lung sounds protective, long-term atelectasis generates multiple pathophysiologic problems. Ventilation/perfusion surface area shrinks with atelectasis leading to hypoxemia and hypercapnia, thus increasing FiO2 requirements and the subsequent risks of oxygen toxicity and absorption atelectasis and fibrosis [41, 44]. Progressive reduction of EELV puts more stress and strain on the remaining normal tissue lung tissue that will now receive all of the VT driving the lung into the ‘VILI Vortex’ (Fig. 1) [28]. Loss of EELV will increase PVR [45, 46] which may require vasoactive agents that may not prevent progression to right heart failure [47]. Long-term lung collapse is known as collapse induration and fibrosing alveolitis resulting in permanent dysfunctional and fibrotic tissue [42, 44, 48, 49]. Atelectasis is independently associated with loss of surfactant function and lung stretch. Surfactant is necessary to facilitate the expansion of collapsed lung and requires a gas interface and cyclic stretching to stimulate type 2 pneumatocytes cell to produce surfactant B. During mechanical ventilation, atelectatic regions need gas and cyclic stretching to stimulate exogenous surfactant release [50, 51]. Hypoxemia, hypercapnia, and stretch receptors in the atelectatic tissue cause dyspnea resulting in patient-ventilator asynchrony [52], and finally collapsed lung tissue increases the risk of developing pneumonia [53, 54].

Open lung approach

As described by Marini and Gattinoni, the VILI Vortex results in a shrinking of the baby lung, such that normal lung tissue is progressively lost to ongoing collapse (Fig. 1) [28, 29]. This results in increased strain on the remaining aerated lung, presumably increasing the risk of VILI. The Open Lung Approach (OLA) attempts to avert this situation, by applying sufficient PEEP, with or without periodic recruitment maneuvers (RMs), such that progressive derecruitment and loss of EELV will be minimized [55,56,57,58]. Unfortunately, the mortality associated with ARDS rates has not been reduced with the use of OLA [55,56,57,58], relative to that in the original ARMA study [20], with an increase in mortality in the OLA group (55.3% vs 49.3%) in the recent Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial [55].

HFOV, which can achieve a higher level of mean airway pressure (Paw) than conventional modes, can also be considered an OLA strategy but has not been shown to improve ARDS mortality compared to conventional lung protective ventilation [59,60,61]. For example, in the Oscillate trial, following a RM of 40 cmH2O airway pressure for 40 s, the Paw was set from 20 to 38 cmH2O based on oxygenation [59]. The lack of efficacy may be due to the fact that HFOV flow may be heterogeneously distributed throughout the lung [62], leading to wide variations in parenchymal strain and potential for worsening injury [13].

Given the physiologic rationale for eliminating collapsed lung tissue, negative results from clinical trials incorporating OLA are surprising. Perhaps assuming that simply opening the injured lung will protect from further VILI [59,60,61] has revealed gaps in our understanding. Data from a recent OLA trial showed no clear evidence of long-term recruitment. These data included: (1) low CRS in the OLA group that was not significantly different from the control group at Day-7 (34.5 vs 32.4 mL cmH2O−1) and (2) PaO2/FiO2 ratios [although significantly higher in the OLA than the control group] remained in the mild ARDS category at Day-7 (262.7 vs 215.1) [55]. In addition, patients that tolerate OLA strategies typically require deep sedation with use of neuromuscular blocking agents which demonstrate inconsistent benefit and potential to worsen outcomes [63, 64]. The failures of OLA have led some to call for its abandonment in the clinical management of ARDS, even though the likely reason for such failures is that the expected level of lung recruitment was not achieved [65]. This is counterintuitive, because the scientific approach can be used to for an evidence-based solution. Given the evidence that atelectrauma caused by RACE and the volutrauma caused by micro-atelectasis are key mechanisms driving VILI, further clarity is needed [11, 17, 30, 33, 34, 40, 66]. Thus, abandoning OLA may close the door on a lung protective approach that could ultimately be successful, if applied in a clinically appropriate manner.

Unfortunately, the rate at which the lung is reopened remains in question and current methods attempt to force open the lung in seconds [67] or minutes [55]. Recruiting the acutely injured lung with dysfunctional surfactant quickly is problematic since the current OLA strategies only use increased airway pressure in the form of PEEP to prevent re-collapse. A large volume of open lung tissue without functional surfactant would require a very high PEEP to prevent de-recruitment. Perhaps a better method to achieve goals of the OLA is to encourage recruitment gradually, recognizing the lung’s time dependencies [68]. Indeed, the optimal method to reopen the collapsed lung may take hours or even days depending on the severity of lung injury.

Recent studies have identified ARDS phenotypes that affect disease pathogenesis and outcomes [69]. We postulate that phenotypes have more of an impact on the disease (ARDS due to either systemic or local inflammation) than on the secondary injury (VILI caused by mechanical damage) [69]. There is little literature on patient phenotype modifying the impact of VILI, but in vitro studies suggest the possibility [70]. The ARDS patient phenotype may be important in VILI if atelectrauma and volutrauma exacerbate the inflammatory cell response (biotrauma). However, biotrauma would not be an issue if protective mechanical ventilation can minimize atelectrauma and volutrauma.

A personalized approach to mechanical ventilation

The aforementioned problems with LVT and OLA suggest improved outcomes in ARDS might be achieved with a ventilation strategy that is able to reverse progressive alveolar instability to stop RACE and subsequently deliberately open densely collapsed lung and keep it in that state for the duration of the patient’s course in the ICU [71]. This would effectively halt the VILI Vortex, by eliminating the nidus of both atelectrauma and volutrauma (Fig. 1) [29, 72]. The question is how to achieve this outcome. Forcibly reopening collapsed atelectatic parenchyma typically takes significant pressure. For example, in the ART trial, recruitment was a 3-step process with step 3 being a peak recruiting pressure of 50cmH2O [55]. Thus, it is easy to imagine that over time, the process of recurring and unnatural rapid reopening of the lung with current RM strategies results in more tissue damage than if the lung were allowed to remain collapsed. We propose the answer to this conundrum lies in controlling the rate at which the atelectatic lung is reopened. Specifically, the goal should be to achieve the normally opened state slowly over extended periods of time, such that only incremental opening, and thus minimal tissue damage, occurs with each breath (Additional file 3, Additional file 4). In support of this idea, Dianti et al. [73] found ARDS mortality decreased with higher levels of PEEP and occasional RMs.

It is also crucial to avoid RACE with each expiration as rapidly as possible since this would eliminate atelectrauma, a key and proximal VILI mechanism. Since alveoli, are interconnected, polygonal, and share walls, atelectrauma propagates and predisposes the lung to additional volutrauma, a key consequential VILI mechanism, by overdistending the adjacent open alveoli when they collapse during exhalation [30,31,32, 38, 39]. If the opening or closing of a particular unit depended only on the pressure applied to it, the most logical approach would be to maintain airway pressure above the highest closing pressure at all times. Raising PEEP to the necessary level in ARDS, however, is often untenable, because closing capacity and the pressures to maintain the lung open can be substantially elevated and divergent in the injured lung. Moreover, conventional ventilation still requires sufficient driving pressures above PEEP to maintain adequate ventilation. Perhaps underappreciated, the opening and closing of small airways and alveoli also depend on time. That is, a unit does not close immediately when exposed to its required closing pressure. Rather, there is a delay before closure occurs.

The fluid that lines the airspaces must flow to the point of closure, which takes time depending on the volume and viscosity of the fluid, as well as the surface tension at the interface. Moreover, changes in airway pressure are not transmitted immediately to the distal lung regions, due to the resistive pressure drop across the intervening conducting airways. Accordingly, changes in airway pressure should not be used to infer corresponding changes in alveolar volume [40, 66, 74]. This affords the opportunity to avoid closure by keeping the duration of expiration less than the closing delay. The question is whether it also allows enough time to achieve the minute ventilation necessary for gas exchange, particularly since the lung requires more time to open (and less time to collapse) as its injury worsens. Thus, an appropriate balance between these two competing processes needs to occur.

Stabilize and gradually recruit approach

One adaptive ventilation strategy that avoids closure during each expiration while ratcheting open densely collapsed atelectatic lung is the Time Controlled Adaptive Ventilation (TCAV) method [19, 33, 72, 75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91] to set and adjust the Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) mode. Although the APRV mode is often considered another OLA, this is not a realistic comparison when using the TCAV method. The OLA (40 cmH2O airway pressure for 40 s) attempts to open most of the collapsed lung within seconds or minutes [92]. The immediate effect of the TCAV approach, on the other hand, is to stabilize the lung using a short duration of expiration that does not allow the alveoli enough time to de-recruit, effectively establishing a time-controlled PEEP (TC-PEEP, Fig. 2, TCAV Method Release Phase). The subsequent re-opening of de-recruited lung may be gradual, taking possibly hours or even days, which is less damaging to injured tissue than forcing it to open quickly.

Fig. 2
figure 2

A Pressure/Time and Flow/Time curves = generated by the ARDSnet method to set and adjust the Volume Assist-Control mode. Key features include an inspiratory: expiratory ratio of 1:3 where the peak/plateau inspiratory pressure is brief. A set positive end-expiratory pressure (Set-PEEP) and FiO2 are adjusted using oxygenation as the trigger for change [20]. B Pressure/Time and Flow/Time curves for the Time Controlled Adaptive Ventilation (TCAV) method to set and adjust the Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) mode. Key features include an inspiratory: expiratory ratio of ~ 12:1, where. the continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) Phase is ~ 90% of each breath. A tidal volume (VT), which is measured as the volume of gas released during the Release Phase (brown arrow), is not set but is influenced by changes in (i) respiratory system compliance (CRS), (ii) the CPAP Phase pressure, and (iii) the duration of the Release Phase. The Release Phase is determined by the Slope of the Expiratory Flow Curve (red arrowhead), which is a breath-to-breath measure of CRS. The lower the CRS, the faster the lung recoil, the steeper the slope, and the shorter the Release Phase, further reducing VT. Thus, the VT will be low in a non-compliant, injured lung and will increase in size only when the lung recruits and CRS increases. Since a change in CRS directs the Release Phase duration, which in turn adjusts the VT and the time-controlled PEEP (TC-PEEP) the TCAV method is both personalized and adaptive as the patient’s lung gets better or worse [104]. Reproduced from Reference [104], under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Full size image

Using TCAV, an upper pressure (PHigh) is applied for an extended duration (Thigh) that facilitates gradual reopening and maintains patent lung units inflated throughout most of the breath cycle referred to as the continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) Phase. The preceding brief time (TLow) spent at the lower pressure (PLow) known as the Release Phase has halted expiratory airway closure so any inspiratory airway reopening remains durable. The combined diffusive (CPAP phase) and convective (release phase) gas exchange provides efficient CO2 removal. The following will discuss the physiologic impact of using inspiratory and expiratory time to stabilize and reopen the lung. Detailed protocols of how to set and adjust APRV based on TCAV have been discussed in detail elsewhere [93].

Using time to prevent alveolar collapse: The most critical aspect of the TCAV method is setting the TLow correctly, thus we focus most of our efforts on explaining the physiology of TLow. The brief Release Phase effectively controls the duration of passive exhalation flow, thereby regulating and retaining lung volume (EELV) and exhaled lung volume (VT). Fundamentally, precise control of integrals of volume (i.e., flow and time) permit direct control of lung volume change between inspiration and expiration. More traditional approaches with PEEP exhales to a pressure, indirectly controlling lung volume change. The retained volume with TCAV secondarily produces a TC-PEEP, even though the PLow is set at 0 cmH2O (Fig. 2B, TC-PEEP red dotted line) as EELV is controlled by time and not pressure where the lung simply does not have sufficient time to fully depressurize. Because lung strain is viscoelastic, which is modeled as a Spring & Dashpot (Fig. 3A) this suggests time is a controller of lung inflation, both increasing and decreasing in lung volume. Sequential time-dependent RACE should first be neutralized, creating the opportunity for gradual lung reopening that is enduring. The duration towards lung volume normalization takes hours to days and yields to the time dictate of lung micromechanics. Current methods of lung recruitment attempt to open the majority of the collapsed lung in seconds and minutes. Recruiting a large volume of collapsed lung quickly is problematic since a high level of PEEP would be necessary to prevent the re-collapse of this newly opened tissue with dysfunctional surfactant.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The ability of the TCAV method to stabilize and then open the lung is based on opening and collapse time constants, which are greatly altered if pulmonary surfactant is deactivated, and the viscoelastic system by which the lung changes volume. A Viscoelastic lung volume change. EXPIRATION (Lung Derecruitment): Viscoelastic volume change can be modeled using the spring connected in parallel with a dashpot. When airway pressure begins to fall during the Release Phase (Fig. 2B), there is a very short time delay before alveolar collapse begins, followed by rapid collapse (spring), and then a gradual, continual collapse over time (dash moving slowing through the pot). INSPIRATION (Lung Recruitment): When airway pressure is reapplied during the CPAP Phase (Fig. 2B, CPAP Phase), the reverse sequence of events occurs during lung opening: slight delay → rapid recruitment → gradual progressive recruitment. B Diagram of viscoelastic lung opening and collapse over time. If the expiratory time is very brief (≤ 0.5 s), lung tissue will not have time to collapse (green box). Lung tissue will continue to recruit without a change in airway pressure for as long as the CPAP Phase is applied. (yellow boxes). C A ventilator monitor showing typical TCAV method Pressure/ Flow/ Volume/ Time curves. Using the TCAV method the extended CPAP Phase continually 'nudges' the lung open over time (yellow boxes) (Additional file 3, Additional file 4) and establishes durable lung recruitment by not giving the lung sufficient time to collapse during the brief Release Phase (green boxes). D A blow-up of the expiratory and inspiratory flow curves is seen on the ventilator monitor (black box). The animal being ventilated had ARDS so the slope of the expiratory flow curve (SlopeEF) was very steep (ARDS, yellow line) as compared to the SlopeEF in a healthy lung (NORMAL, blue dashed line). At the termination of the brief Release Phase (green star) the lung is rapidly reinflated to the set CPAP Pressure. Panel A Adapted from Reference [29], under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Full size image

PHigh is set to maintain lung inflation along the steep portion of the pressure–volume curve between functional residual capacity and total lung capacity. In practice, it is important to determine the intravascular volume status of a patient and if they are pre-load dependent. In a pre-load dependent state validated by an assessment such as passive leg raise maneuver, a fluid bolus has a favorable hemodynamic outcome without causing pulmonary edema [94]. Setting P-high from a volume control (VC) mode should equal Pplat, from a pressure control (PC) or dual control mode mode should equal Ppeak, and from HFOV should equal the Paw plus 2–4 cm H2O. If setting APRV with the TCAV method as the initial mode of mechanical ventilation, consider using the PO2 from arterial blood gas values where mild ARDS would set PHigh 20–24 cm H2O, moderate 25–29 cm H2O, severe 26–30 cm H2O, and in some patients with obesity and heavy chest wall weight, PHigh may need to be higher. Assessment of lung volume includes using the chest radiograph and looking at the curvature of the diaphragm. The ideal location for adequate lung volumes is a dome-shaped diaphragm that is located at the mid-clavicular line. Pressures may require adjusted as the clinical course changes, for either better (decreasing PHigh) or worse (increasing PHigh).

Using time to gradually reopen alveoli: During TCAV, the lung thus spends most of its time exposed to the CPAP Phase where the PHigh must be high enough to induce gradual recruitment but not so high or abrupt as to cause volutrauma (Fig. 3B, C Inspiration, yellow box). The duration of TLow, on the other hand, cannot be longer than the shortest closure delay so that lung units do not have time to close before the next application of PHigh begins (Fig. 3B, C Expiration, green box). Since recruitment of closed lung units depends on time as well as pressure, the longer the high pressure or CPAP Phase is applied, the more lung tissue that can be recruited (Fig. 3, Inspiration). The combination of this extended CPAP Phase and a rapid reinflation (Fig. 3D, red line) following a very brief Release Phase (Fig. 3D, star) functions as an inflate and brake ‘ratchet’ to gradually open the lung while simultaneously preventing re-collapse during expiration [95].

The TLow (Release Phase) is the most critical component of the TCAV method. If the TLow is set too long, set to target a VT or intrinsic PEEP or to control PCO2 [even a fraction of a second], progressive atelectrauma results and offsets any gains produced during the CPAP Phase [19, 93, 96,97,98]. Furthermore, the optimal TLow for a given patient is personalized and varies with factors such as the size of the artificial airway (i.e. endotracheal tube) and severity of lung injury. Since lung recoil forces are proportional to elastance of the respiratory system (ERS) and are high in severe ARDS, more rapid, passive exhalation (Fig. 3D, ARDS yellow line) occurs where the TLow must be tuned and is briefer than in less severe lung disease. As the patient progresses toward recovery, the rate of lung emptying during expiration decreases, in which case the TLow can be commensurately increased (Fig. 3D, Normal blue dashed line) [29].

The explicit titration of TLow in TCAV leverages time constants of expiration reflected in the mean slope of the expiratory flow (SLOPEEF) curve, which provides a breath-by-breath reflection of CRS (Fig. 3D). Specifically, expiration is terminated when the magnitude of expiratory flow has decelerated to 75% of the peak expiratory flow (PEF) at the start of expiration. For example, if the PEF is 100 L/min multiplied by 0.75, the termination of PEFwould be the corresponding time (TLow) to achieve 75 L/min (Fig. 3D, star). A greater SLOPEEF indicates decreased CRS, and terminating at 75% of PEF is achieved earlier in expiration (ie requires a TLow reduction). Thus, TLow can be tuned accordingly, resulting in a personalized method for setting ventilator parameters. Figure 4 illustrates how TLow decreases as the SLOPEEF increases going from Normal lung to Severe ARDS using the same calculation of termination at 75% of the PEF rate. (Fig. 4A, B: Expiratory time = 0.5 → 0.4 → 0.3secs). Importantly, adherence to this strategy is crucial for individualized lung protection, otherwise increasing the risk of severe VILI. The TCAV method has been shown to be lung protective when the TLow is set to 75%, controlling EELV. For example, we have shown that while setting the TLow to terminate at 75% of the PEF is highly protective and extending the TLow with termination at 25% of PEF is extremely damaging in disorders of high ERS [39]. Alternatively, because recoil forces are low in obstructive lung disease, setting the TLow to terminate at 25% of PEF at the start of expiration is more suitable [99].

Fig. 4
figure 4

Adapted from Reference [104], under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Expiratory Gas Flow/Time curve using the TCAV method to set TLow, the duration of the Release Phase (Fig. 2B, Release Phase). As lung injury increases from Normal Lung to Moderate and Severe ARDS, the respiratory system compliance (CRS) decreases, increasing the collapse recoil of the lung. The increased lung recoil causes faster gas flow during expiration resulting in a steeper slope of the expiratory flow curve (SlopeEF). a Using the SlopeEF to set the Release Phase duration (Fig. 2B, Release Phase), the Normal Lung has a release time of 0.5 s, Moderate ARDS 0.4 s, and Severe ARDS 0.3 s. Expiratory flow is terminated (red arrowhead) by the clinician by adjusting the TLow, following which the lung is rapidly reinflated to the CPAP Phase (Fig. 2B, CPAP Phase). Thus, using the TCAV method personalizes and adapts the Release Phase (TLow) according to the patient’s lung physiology. b Calculation of the termination point on the expiratory flow curve using the TCAV method. Termination of expiratory flow (TEF) is calculated as 75% of the peak expiratory flow (PEF) (PEF 50L/min × 0.75 = TEF 37.5L/min).

Full size image

A recent viewpoint paper [100] suggests APRV is ill-advised and “should not routinely be used in patients with or at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome outside of a clinical trial”, based on the analysis of eight randomized controlled trials. However, the data in question shows no evidence that APRV, when compared with conventional ventilation (i.e., VC or LVT strategy), results in significant harm. Accordingly, there is no statistically justifiable conclusion on the inferiority of APRV, and any proclamation against the routine use of APRV based on current evidence is not supported; rather, more personalized and clinically efficacious modes of mechanical ventilation are needed [6]. Further, a notable challenge impeding the accurate scientific assessment of APRV lies in the widespread prevalence of myths and misconceptions consistently featured in scholarly publications [101]. Thus, any declaration that only the APRV mode is ill-advised for routine clinical use is inappropriate and may result in the loss of a powerful therapeutic tool in the arsenal of the clinician who must manage ventilation in patients with ARDS.

Summary and conclusions

The mortality associated with ARDS remains high, despite the advent of lung protective ventilation strategies over twenty years ago. Seemingly well-founded strategies, such as LVT, HFOV, or OLA, despite their appeal, have not substantially reduced mortality. An analysis of the physiologic mechanisms behind VILI suggests these methods fail to eliminate its two principal causes: (1) generation of volutrauma at interfaces between collapsed and open parenchyma; and (2) avoidance of RACE. We propose these strategies do not account for the individual time dependence of opening and closing, which can vary across patients and subtypes of ARDS. Thus, a closed-looped personalized approach to lung protection can be achieved through a combination of the slow progressive reopening of collapsed lung tissue coupled with avoidance of closure using sufficiently brief, but patient-specific, expiratory durations in a closed-loop fashion (Fig. 5). TCAV is one approach to achieving these goals in a manner that adapts to the changing pathophysiology and clinical requirements of an individual patient using the SlopeEF as a dynamic, bedside tool. There may be other viable variations on this theme, but TCAV provides proof of concept through its demonstrated efficacy in patients and animal models [79, 81, 87, 88, 96, 102, 103], particularly when applied preemptively to the lung at risk for VILI. It may be time to consider altering the standard of care in ARDS to ventilation strategies that exploit such a personalized approach.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Closed-loop systems for both the VILI Vortex and TCAV personalized lung protection (Fig. 1). VILI Vortex—injury collapses lung tissue and reduces respiratory system compliance (CRS) → redistributing a fixed tidal volume into a heterogeneously damaged lung → leads to maldistribution of gas within the lung damaging alveoli by both atelectrauma and volutrauma → causing progressive lung collapse (VILI Vortex) → further reducing CRS. TCAV—injury collapses lung tissue and reduces CRS → changes in CRS are manifest as a change in the slope of the expiratory flow curve (SlopeEF) → the SlopeEF is used to set the duration of the Release Phase and is thus directed by changes in the patient’s CRS (Fig. 2B, Release Phase) → directed by changes in the patient’s CRS the Release Phase is set sufficiently short to prevent alveolar collapse resulting in a gradual lung recruitment → lung recruitment increases CRS. The slope of the expiratory flow curve (SlopeEF) can be used as a dynamic feedback signal to adaptively change the expiratory duration necessary to maintain lung stability. Changes in the SlopeEF will identify if CRS is low or high and used to personalize and adaptively adjust the Expiratory Duration (TLow) necessary to maintain an open and stable lung, regardless of lung injury severity. The left side of the figure does not have this feedback mechanism which may lead to further alveolar collapse. On the right side of the figure the change in SlopeEF allows a stop and brake and adjustments made to T-low to halt the VILI Vortex

Full size image

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. Matthay MA, Zemans RL, Zimmerman GA, Arabi YM, Beitler JR, Mercat A, Herridge M, Randolph AG, Calfee CS. Acute respiratory distress syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019;5:18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM. Ventilator-induced lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2126–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Caser EB, Zandonade E, Pereira E, Gama AM, Barbas CS. Impact of distinct definitions of acute lung injury on its incidence and outcomes in Brazilian ICUs: prospective evaluation of 7,133 patients*. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:574–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Laffey JG, Bellani G, Pham T, Fan E, Madotto F, Bajwa EK, Brochard L, Clarkson K, Esteban A, Gattinoni L, et al. Potentially modifiable factors contributing to outcome from acute respiratory distress syndrome: the LUNG SAFE study. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1865–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fan E, Brodie D, Slutsky AS. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA. 2018;319:698–710.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, Fan E, Brochard L, Esteban A, Gattinoni L, van Haren F, Larsson A, McAuley DF, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016;315:788–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bates JHT, Smith BJ. Ventilator-induced lung injury and lung mechanics. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6:378.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Cressoni M, Chiurazzi C, Gotti M, Amini M, Brioni M, Algieri I, Cammaroto A, Rovati C, Massari D, di Castiglione CB, et al. Lung inhomogeneities and time course of ventilator-induced mechanical injuries. Anesthesiology. 2015;123:618–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cereda M, Xin Y. Alveolar recruitment and lung injury: an issue of timing and location? Crit Care Med. 2013;41:2837–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cereda M, Xin Y, Meeder N, Zeng J, Jiang Y, Hamedani H, Profka H, Kadlecek S, Clapp J, Deshpande CG, et al. Visualizing the propagation of acute lung injury. Anesthesiology. 2016;124:121–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Albert K, Krischer JM, Pfaffenroth A, Wilde S, Lopez-Rodriguez E, Braun A, Smith BJ, Knudsen L. Hidden microatelectases increase vulnerability to ventilation-induced lung injury. Front Physiol. 2020;11:530485.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Gattinoni L, Pesenti A. The concept of “baby lung.” Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:776–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Herrmann J, Gerard SE, Shao W, Hawley ML, Reinhardt JM, Christensen GE, Hoffman EA, Kaczka DW. Quantifying regional lung deformation using four-dimensional computed tomography: a comparison of conventional and oscillatory ventilation. Front Physiol. 2020;11:14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Herrmann J, Gerard SE, Shao W, Xin Y, Cereda M, Reinhardt JM, Christensen GE, Hoffman EA, Kaczka DW. Effects of lung injury on regional aeration and expiratory time constants: insights from four-dimensional computed tomography image registration. Front Physiol. 2021;12:707119.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Cereda M, Xin Y, Hamedani H, Bellani G, Kadlecek S, Clapp J, Guerra L, Meeder N, Rajaei J, Tustison NJ, et al. Tidal changes on CT and progression of ARDS. Thorax. 2017;72:981–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cereda M, Xin Y, Kadlecek S, Hamedani H, Rajaei J, Clapp J, Rizi RR. Hyperpolarized gas diffusion MRI for the study of atelectasis and acute respiratory distress syndrome. NMR Biomed. 2014;27:1468–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gaver DP 3rd, Nieman GF, Gatto LA, Cereda M, Habashi NM, Bates JHT. The POOR Get POORer: a hypothesis for the pathogenesis of ventilator-induced lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202:1081–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Allen GB, Pavone LA, DiRocco JD, Bates JH, Nieman GF. Pulmonary impedance and alveolar instability during injurious ventilation in rats. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2005(99):723–30.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Albert SP, DiRocco J, Allen GB, Bates JH, Lafollette R, Kubiak BD, Fischer J, Maroney S, Nieman GF. The role of time and pressure on alveolar recruitment. J Appl Physiol. 2009;106:757–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT, Wheeler A, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome N. 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;342:1301–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gattinoni L, Pesenti A, Avalli L, Rossi F, Bombino M. Pressure-volume curve of total respiratory system in acute respiratory failure. Computed tomographic scan study. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987;136:730–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schiller HJ, McCann UG 2nd, Carney DE, Gatto LA, Steinberg JM, Nieman GF. Altered alveolar mechanics in the acutely injured lung. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:1049–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson BT, Hayden D, Matthay MA, Brower R, Parsons PE. Clinicians’ approaches to mechanical ventilation in acute lung injury and ARDS. Chest. 2001;120:1622–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Deans KJ, Minneci PC, Cui X, Banks SM, Natanson C, Eichacker PQ. Mechanical ventilation in ARDS: one size does not fit all. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1141–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Amato MB, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, Brochard L, Costa EL, Schoenfeld DA, Stewart TE, Briel M, Talmor D, Mercat A, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:747–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Raschke RA, Stoffer B, Assar S, Fountain S, Olsen K, Heise CW, Gallo T, Padilla-Jones A, Gerkin R, Parthasarathy S, Curry SC. The relationship of tidal volume and driving pressure with mortality in hypoxic patients receiving mechanical ventilation. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0255812.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tonetti T, Vasques F, Rapetti F, Maiolo G, Collino F, Romitti F, Camporota L, Cressoni M, Cadringher P, Quintel M, Gattinoni L. Driving pressure and mechanical power: new targets for VILI prevention. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5:286.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Marini JJ, Gattinoni L. Time course of evolving ventilator-induced lung injury: the shrinking baby lung. Crit Care Med. 2020;48:1203–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Nieman G, Kollisch-Singule M, Ramcharran H, Satalin J, Blair S, Gatto LA, Andrews P, Ghosh A, Kaczka DW, Gaver D, et al. Unshrinking the baby lung to calm the VILI vortex. Crit Care. 2022;26:242.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Protti A, Andreis DT, Monti M, Santini A, Sparacino CC, Langer T, Votta E, Gatti S, Lombardi L, Leopardi O, et al. Lung stress and strain during mechanical ventilation: any difference between statics and dynamics? Crit Care Med. 2013;41:1046–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Protti A, Andreis DT, Iapichino GE, Monti M, Comini B, Milesi M, Zani L, Gatti S, Lombardi L, Gattinoni L. High positive end-expiratory pressure: only a dam against oedema formation? Crit Care. 2013;17:R131.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Protti A, Maraffi T, Milesi M, Votta E, Santini A, Pugni P, Andreis DT, Nicosia F, Zannin E, Gatti S, et al. Role of strain rate in the pathogenesis of ventilator-induced lung edema. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:e838-845.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jain SV, Kollisch-Singule M, Satalin J, Searles Q, Dombert L, Abdel-Razek O, Yepuri N, Leonard A, Gruessner A, Andrews P, et al. The role of high airway pressure and dynamic strain on ventilator-induced lung injury in a heterogeneous acute lung injury model. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2017;5:25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Seah AS, Grant KA, Aliyeva M, Allen GB, Bates JHT. Quantifying the roles of tidal volume and PEEP in the pathogenesis of ventilator-induced lung injury. Ann Biomed Eng. 2011;39:1505–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wilson MR, Patel BV, Takata M. Ventilation with “clinically relevant” high tidal volumes does not promote stretch-induced injury in the lungs of healthy mice. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:2850–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Syring RS, Otto CM, Spivack RE, Markstaller K, Baumgardner JE. Maintenance of end-expiratory recruitment with increased respiratory rate after saline-lavage lung injury. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2007(102):331–9.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hamlington KL, Smith BJ, Dunn CM, Charlebois CM, Roy GS, Bates JHT. Linking lung function to structural damage of alveolar epithelium in ventilator-induced lung injury. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2018;255:22–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Otto CM, Markstaller K, Kajikawa O, Karmrodt J, Syring RS, Pfeiffer B, Good VP, Frevert CW, Baumgardner JE. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of ventilator-associated lung injury after surfactant depletion. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2008(104):1485–94.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ramcharran H, Bates JHT, Satalin J, Blair S, Andrews PL, Gaver DP, Gatto LA, Wang G, Ghosh AJ, Robedee B, et al. Protective ventilation in a pig model of acute lung injury: timing is as important as pressure. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2022(133):1093–105.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cereda M, Emami K, Kadlecek S, Xin Y, Mongkolwisetwara P, Profka H, Barulic A, Pickup S, Mansson S, Wollmer P, et al. Quantitative imaging of alveolar recruitment with hyperpolarized gas MRI during mechanical ventilation. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2011(110):499–511.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Albert RK, Smith B, Perlman CE, Schwartz DA. Is progression of pulmonary fibrosis due to ventilation-induced lung injury? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200:140–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Lutz D, Gazdhar A, Lopez-Rodriguez E, Ruppert C, Mahavadi P, Gunther A, Klepetko W, Bates JH, Smith B, Geiser T, et al. Alveolar derecruitment and collapse induration as crucial mechanisms in lung injury and fibrosis. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2015;52:232–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wallace WA, Fitch PM, Simpson AJ, Howie SE. Inflammation-associated remodelling and fibrosis in the lung - a process and an end point. Int J Exp Pathol. 2007;88:103–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Burkhardt A. Alveolitis and collapse in the pathogenesis of pulmonary fibrosis. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1989;140:513–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Duggan M, McCaul CL, McNamara PJ, Engelberts D, Ackerley C, Kavanagh BP. Atelectasis causes vascular leak and lethal right ventricular failure in uninjured rat lungs. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167:1633–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Simmons DH, Linde LM, Miller JH, Oreilly RJ. Relation between lung volume and pulmonary vascular resistance. Circ Res. 1961;9:465–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sipmann FS, Santos A, Tusman G. Heart-lung interactions in acute respiratory distress syndrome: pathophysiology, detection and management strategies. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6:27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Cabrera-Benitez NE, Laffey JG, Parotto M, Spieth PM, Villar J, Zhang H, Slutsky AS. Mechanical ventilation-associated lung fibrosis in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a significant contributor to poor outcome. Anesthesiology. 2014;121:189–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Knudsen L, Ruppert C, Ochs M. Tissue remodelling in pulmonary fibrosis. Cell Tissue Res. 2017;367:607–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pearse DB, Searcy RM, Mitzner W, Permutt S, Sylvester JT. Effects of tidal volume and respiratory frequency on lung lymph flow. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2005(99):556–63.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Majumdar A, Arold SP, Bartolak-Suki E, Parameswaran H, Suki B. Jamming dynamics of stretch-induced surfactant release by alveolar type II cells. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2012(112):824–31.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Spinelli E, Mauri T, Beitler JR, Pesenti A, Brodie D. Respiratory drive in the acute respiratory distress syndrome: pathophysiology, monitoring, and therapeutic interventions. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:606–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Albert RK. The role of ventilation-induced surfactant dysfunction and atelectasis in causing acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;185:702–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Duggan M, Kavanagh BP. Pulmonary atelectasis: a pathogenic perioperative entity. Anesthesiology. 2005;102:838–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Cavalcanti AB, Suzumura EA, Laranjeira LN, Paisani DM, Damiani LP, Guimaraes HP, Romano ER, Regenga MM, Taniguchi LNT, Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial I, 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: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:1335–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Mercat A, Richard JC, Vielle B, Jaber S, Osman D, Diehl JL, Lefrant JY, Prat G, Richecoeur J, Nieszkowska A, et al. Positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:646–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Slutsky AS, Arabi YM, Cooper DJ, Davies AR, Hand LE, Zhou Q, Thabane L, 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: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:637–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Brower RG, Lanken PN, MacIntyre N, Matthay MA, Morris A, Ancukiewicz M, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT, Natl Heart Lung Blood Inst AC. Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressures in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:327–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ferguson ND, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Mehta S, Hand L, Austin P, Zhou Q, Matte A, Walter SD, Lamontagne F, et al. High-frequency oscillation in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:795–805.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Young D, Lamb SE, Shah S, MacKenzie I, Tunnicliffe W, Lall R, Rowan K, Cuthbertson BH, Group OS. High-frequency oscillation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:806–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Malhotra A, Drazen JM. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation on shaky ground. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:863–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Kaczka DW. Oscillatory ventilation redux: alternative perspectives on ventilator-induced lung injury in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Curr Opin Physiol. 2021;21:36–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Tanaka LM, Azevedo LC, Park M, Schettino G, Nassar AP, Rea-Neto A, Tannous L, de Souza-Dantas VC, Torelly A, Lisboa T, et al. Early sedation and clinical outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Crit Care. 2014;18:R156.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Goligher EC, Dres M, Fan E, Rubenfeld GD, Scales DC, Herridge MS, Vorona S, Sklar MC, Rittayamai N, Lanys A, et al. Mechanical ventilation-induced diaphragm atrophy strongly impacts clinical outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197:204–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Sahetya SK, Brower RG. Lung recruitment and titrated PEEP in moderate to severe ARDS: is the door closing on the open lung? JAMA. 2017;318:1327–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Cereda M, Xin Y, Emami K, Huang J, Rajaei J, Profka H, Han B, Mongkolwisetwara P, Kadlecek S, Kuzma NN, et al. Positive end-expiratory pressure increments during anesthesia in normal lung result in hysteresis and greater numbers of smaller aerated airspaces. Anesthesiology. 2013;119:1402–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Brower RG, Morris A, MacIntyre N, Matthay MA, Hayden D, Thompson T, Clemmer T, Lanken PN, Schoenfeld D, Ards Clinical Trials Network NHL, Blood Institute NIoH. Effects of recruitment maneuvers in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome ventilated with high positive end-expiratory pressure. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:2592–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Santos RS, Moraes L, Samary CS, Santos CL, Ramos MB, Vasconcellos AP, Horta LF, Morales MM, Capelozzi VL, Garcia CS, et al. Fast versus slow recruitment maneuver at different degrees of acute lung inflammation induced by experimental sepsis. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:1089–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Bos LDJ, Ware LB. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: causes, pathophysiology, and phenotypes. Lancet. 2022;400:1145–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Joelsson JP, Myszor IT, Arason AJ, Ingthorsson S, Cherek P, Windels GS, Leosson K, Gudmundsson GH, Gudjonsson T, Karason S. Innovative in vitro method to study ventilator induced lung injury. Altex. 2019;36:634–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Satalin J, Habashi NM, Nieman GF. Never give the lung the opportunity to collapse. Trends Anaesth Crit Care. 2018;22:10–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Nieman GF, Andrews P, Satalin J, Wilcox K, Kollisch-Singule M, Madden M, Aiash H, Blair SJ, Gatto LA, Habashi NM. Acute lung injury: how to stabilize a broken lung. Crit Care. 2018;22:136.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Dianti J, Tisminetzky M, Ferreyro BL, Englesakis M, Del Sorbo L, Sud S, Talmor D, Ball L, Meade M, Hodgson C, et al. Association of positive end-expiratory pressure and lung recruitment selection strategies with mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205:1300–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Suki B, Stamenovic D, Hubmayr R. Lung parenchymal mechanics. Compr Physiol. 2011;1:1317–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Emr B, Gatto LA, Roy S, Satalin J, Ghosh A, Snyder K, Andrews P, Habashi N, Marx W, Ge L, et al. Airway pressure release ventilation prevents ventilator-induced lung injury in normal lungs. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:1005–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Kollisch-Singule M, Emr B, Smith B, Roy S, Jain S, Satalin J, Snyder K, Andrews P, Habashi N, Bates J, et al. Mechanical breath profile of airway pressure release ventilation: the effect on alveolar recruitment and microstrain in acute lung injury. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:1138–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Kollisch-Singule M, Emr B, Smith B, Ruiz C, Roy S, Meng Q, Jain S, Satalin J, Snyder K, Ghosh A, et al. Airway pressure release ventilation reduces conducting airway micro-strain in lung injury. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219:968–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Kollisch-Singule M, Jain S, Andrews P, Smith BJ, Hamlington-Smith KL, Roy S, DiStefano D, Nuss E, Satalin J, Meng Q, et al. Effect of airway pressure release ventilation on dynamic alveolar heterogeneity. JAMA Surg. 2016. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1001/jamasurg.2015.2683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Kollisch-Singule M, Emr B, Jain SV, Andrews P, Satalin J, Liu J, Porcellio E, Kenyon V, Wang G, Marx W, et al. The effects of airway pressure release ventilation on respiratory mechanics in extrapulmonary lung injury. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2015;3:35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Smith BJ, Lundblad LK, Kollisch-Singule M, Satalin J, Nieman G, Habashi N, Bates JH. Predicting the response of the injured lung to the mechanical breath profile. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2015(118):932–40.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Kollisch-Singule M, Jain SV, Satalin J, Andrews P, Searles Q, Liu Z, Zhou Y, Wang G, Meier AH, Gatto LA, et al. Limiting ventilator-associated lung injury in a preterm porcine neonatal model. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52:50–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Nieman GF, Satalin J, Kollisch-Singule M, Andrews P, Aiash H, Habashi NM, Gatto LA. Physiology in medicine: understanding dynamic alveolar physiology to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2017(122):1516–22.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Nieman GF, Satalin J, Andrews P, Aiash H, Habashi NM, Gatto LA. Personalizing mechanical ventilation according to physiologic parameters to stabilize alveoli and minimize ventilator induced lung injury (VILI). Intensive Care Med Exp. 2017;5:8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Nieman GF, Gatto LA, Habashi NM. Impact of mechanical ventilation on the pathophysiology of progressive acute lung injury. J Appl Physiol. 2015;119:1245–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Silva PL, Cruz FF, Samary CDS, Moraes L, de Magalhaes RF, Fernandes MVS, Bose R, Pelegati VB, Carvalho HF, Capelozzi VL, et al. Biological response to time-controlled adaptive ventilation depends on acute respiratory distress syndrome etiology. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e609–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Roy S, Sadowitz B, Andrews P, Gatto LA, Marx W, Ge L, Wang G, Lin X, Dean DA, Kuhn M, et al. Early stabilizing alveolar ventilation prevents acute respiratory distress syndrome: a novel timing-based ventilatory intervention to avert lung injury. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73:391–400.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Roy SK, Emr B, Sadowitz B, Gatto LA, Ghosh A, Satalin JM, Snyder KP, Ge L, Wang G, Marx W, et al. Preemptive application of airway pressure release ventilation prevents development of acute respiratory distress syndrome in a rat traumatic hemorrhagic shock model. Shock. 2013;40:210–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Roy S, Habashi N, Sadowitz B, Andrews P, Ge L, Wang G, Roy P, Ghosh A, Kuhn M, Satalin J, et al. Early airway pressure release ventilation prevents ARDS-a novel preventive approach to lung injury. Shock. 2013;39:28–38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Jain SV, Kollisch-Singule M, Sadowitz B, Dombert L, Satalin J, Andrews P, Gatto LA, Nieman GF, Habashi NM. The 30-year evolution of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV). Intensive Care Med Exp. 2016;4:11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Nieman GF, Al-Khalisy H, Kollisch-Singule M, Satalin J, Blair S, Trikha G, Andrews P, Madden M, Gatto LA, Habashi NM. A physiologically informed strategy to effectively open, stabilize, and protect the acutely injured lung. Front Physiol. 2020;11:227.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Kollisch-Singule M, Satalin J, Blair SJ, Andrews PL, Gatto LA, Nieman GF, Habashi NM. Mechanical ventilation lessons learned from alveolar micromechanics. Front Physiol. 2020;11:233.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Borges JB, Okamoto VN, Matos GF, Caramez MP, Arantes PR, Barros F, Souza CE, Victorino JA, Kacmarek RM, Barbas CS, et al. Reversibility of lung collapse and hypoxemia in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174:268–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Habashi NM. Other approaches to open-lung ventilation: airway pressure release ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:S228–240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Mesquida J, Gruartmoner G, Ferrer R. Passive leg raising for assessment of volume responsiveness: a review. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017;23:237–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Nieman GF, Kaczka DW, Andrews PL, Ghosh A, Al-Khalisy H, Camporota L, Satalin J, Herrmann J, Habashi NM. First stabilize and then gradually recruit: a paradigm shift in protective mechanical ventilation for acute lung injury. J Clin Med. 2023. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm12144633.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Andrews PL, Shiber JR, Jaruga-Killeen E, Roy S, Sadowitz B, Otoole RV, Gatto LA, Nieman GF, Scalea T, Habashi NM. Early application of airway pressure release ventilation may reduce mortality in high-risk trauma patients: a systematic review of observational trauma ARDS literature. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75:635–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Coughlin MF, Suki B, Stamenovic D. Dynamic behavior of lung parenchyma in shear. J Appl Physiol. 1985;1996(80):1880–90.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Bates JHT, Gaver DP, Habashi NM, Nieman GF. Atelectrauma versus volutrauma: a tale of two time-constants. Crit Care Explor. 2020;2:e0299.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Oliveira MV, Magalhaes RF, Rocha NN, Fernandes MV, Antunes MA, Morales MM, Capelozzi VL, Satalin J, Andrews P, Habashi NM, et al. Effects of time-controlled adaptive ventilation on cardiorespiratory parameters and inflammatory response in experimental emphysema. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2022(132):564–74.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Parhar KKS, Doig C. Caution-do not attempt this at home. Airway pressure release ventilation should not routinely be used in patients with or at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome outside of a clinical trial. Crit Care Med. 2023. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1097/CCM.0000000000005776.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Andrews P, Shiber J, Madden M, Nieman GF, Camporota L, Habashi NM. Myths and misconceptions of airway pressure release ventilation: getting past the noise and on to the signal. Front Physiol. 2022;13:928562.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Roy SK, Kubiak BD, Albert SP, Vieau CJ, Gatto L, Golub L, Lee HM, Sookhu S, Vodovotz Y, Nieman GF. Chemically modified tetracycline 3 prevents acute respiratory distress syndrome in a porcine model of sepsis + ischemia/reperfusion-induced lung injury. Shock. 2012;37:424–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Rola P, Daxon B. Airway pressure release ventilation with time-controlled adaptive ventilation (TCAV) in COVID-19: a community hospital´s experience. Front Physiol. 2022;13:928562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Nieman GF, Gatto LA, Andrews P, Satalin J, Camporota L, Daxon B, Blair SJ, Al-Khalisy H, Madden M, Kollisch-Singule M, et al. Prevention and treatment of acute lung injury with time-controlled adaptive ventilation: physiologically informed modification of airway pressure release ventilation. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10:3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

NIH R01HL142702—Support for Bates, Gaver, Nieman, Satalin, Blair. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program, Award W81XWH-20-1-0696—Support for Nieman, Satalin, Blair, Kaczka, Habashi. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program, Award W81XWH-20-1-0507—Support for Kaczka. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions and recommendations are those of the authors, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Department of Defense.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

    Hassan Al-Khalisy

  2. SUNY Upstate Medical University, 750 E. Adams St., Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA

    Gary F. Nieman, Michaela Kollisch-Singule, Joshua Satalin, Sarah Blair & Auyon Ghosh

  3. R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Penny Andrews & Nader M. Habashi

  4. Health Centre for Human and Applied Physiological Sciences, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Luigi Camporota

  5. University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA

    Joseph Shiber

  6. Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, NY, USA

    Toni Manougian

  7. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Jacob Herrmann & David W. Kaczka

  8. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Donald P. Gaver

  9. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

    Jason H. T. Bates

Authors
  1. Hassan Al-Khalisy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary F. Nieman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michaela Kollisch-Singule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Penny Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luigi Camporota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joseph Shiber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Toni Manougian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Joshua Satalin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sarah Blair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Auyon Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jacob Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. David W. Kaczka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Donald P. Gaver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Jason H. T. Bates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Nader M. Habashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, HK, NMH; writing—original draft, HK, GFN; writing—review and editing, MKS, PLA, LC, JS, TM, JS, SB, AG, JH, DWK, DPG, JHT, NMH; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Satalin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MKS has received a Research Grant and GFN an Unrestricted Educational Grant from Dräger Medical Systems, Inc. GFN, MKS have presented and received honoraria and/or travel reimbursement at event(s) sponsored by Dräger Medical Systems, Inc., outside of the published work. GFN, MKS, have lectured for Intensive Care On-line Network, Inc. (ICON). NMH is the founder of ICON, of which PLA is an employee. NMH holds patents on a method of initiating, managing and/or weaning airway pressure release ventilation, as well as controlling a ventilator in accordance with the same. DWK and JH are co-founders and shareholders of OscillaVent, Inc., and are co-inventors on a patent involving multi-frequency oscillatory ventilation. DWK and JH also receive research support from ZOLL Medical Corporation, and DWK is a consultant for Lungpacer Medical, Inc. JHTB is a consultant to and shareholder of OscillaVent, Inc., and has two patents pending in the field of MV. The authors maintain that industry had no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; nor the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Video S1. Interdependent alveoli Hexagon model with a central area of instability. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) causes alveolar instability secondary to capillary leak and surfactant deactivation. Atelectrauma occurs due to the excessive ‘peeling’ stress as the alveolar wall in apposition peels apart. Collapsed alveoli act as a stress multiplier, causing overdistension and excessive strain on the walls of adjacent alveoli [doi.org/https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1152/japplphysiol.00123.2017].

Additional file 2: Video S2. Interdependent alveoli model with a central area of collapse acting as a stress multiplier. With each breath, there is an excessive dynamic strain on the normal alveolar walls surrounding the collapsed or edema-filled tissue. [doi.org/https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1152/japplphysiol.00123.2017].

Additional file 3: Video S3. Subpleural alveoli (spherical objects with bright borders) in a rat Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) model. Extensive atelectasis (consolidated red areas) is present at atmospheric pressure. Gradual alveolar recruitment occurs incrementally following an applied airway pressure over an extended inspiratory time. [doi.org/https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1152/japplphysiol.90735.2008].

Additional file 4: Video S4. Excised rat lung Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) model. The pink area is inflated tissue, and darker red areas are atelectatic. Lung tissue recruits incrementally following an applied airway pressure over an extended inspiratory time. [doi.org/https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1152/japplphysiol.90735.2008].

Rights and permissions

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/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Khalisy, H., Nieman, G.F., Kollisch-Singule, M. et al. Time-Controlled Adaptive Ventilation (TCAV): a personalized strategy for lung protection. Respir Res 25, 37 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12931-023-02615-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12931-023-02615-y

Keywords

Respiratory Research

ISSN: 1465-993X

Contact us