Background: Clinical benefits of recruitment maneuver in ARDS patients are controversial. A number of previous studies showed possible benefits; a large recent study reported that recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration may even be harmful. This meta-analysis was designed to compare the clinical utility of recruitment maneuver with low tidal volume ventilation in adult patients with ARDS.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing recruitment maneuver and lung protective ventilation strategy with lung protective strategy ventilation protocol alone in adult patients with ARDS has been included in this meta-analysis. PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 10 November 2017 to identify potentially eligible trials. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated for binary and continuous variables respectively.

Results: Data of 2480 patients from 7 randomized controlled trials have been included in this meta-analysis and systemic review. Reported mortality at the longest available follow-up [RR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.80, 1.08); p = 0.33], ICU mortality [RR (95% CI) 0.91 (0.76, 1.10); p = 0.33] and in-hospital mortality [RR (95% CI) 0.95 (0.83, 1.08); p = 0.45] were similar between recruitment maneuver group and standard lung protective ventilation group. Duration of hospital stay [SMD (95% CI) 0.00 (- 0.09, 0.10); p = 0.92] and duration of ICU stays [SMD (95% CI) 0.05 (- 0.09, 0.19); p = 0.49] were also similar between recruitment maneuver group and standard lung protective ventilation group. Risk of barotrauma was also similar.

Conclusion: Use of recruitment maneuver along with co-interventions such as PEEP titration does not provide any benefit in terms of mortality, length of ICU, and hospital stay in ARDS patients.

Keywords: ARDS; Open lung; PEEP titration; Recruitment maneuver.