Skip to main content

Mechanical ventilation in intensive and critical care units of Russia: RuVent national epidemiologic study


Experimental data have shown that mechanical ventilation can amplify or possibly trigger lung injury [1, 2]. The biggest up-to-date clinical trial by the ARDS Network demonstrates reduction of mortality in ARDS patients with a protective lung strategy [3]. But we can see some gaps between international recommendations and real clinical practice [4, 5].


The multicenter clinical trial included 470 patients from 101 centers (ICUs) in Russia. Inclusion criteria were all patients without age restrictions ventilated for more than 12 hours for any reason from 14 to 18 February 2011. Recruitment of centers and data collection were made online.


Total mortality was 35.1%, mortality in ARDS was 44.9%. Prevalence of ARDS was 18.7%. Leading causes for initiation of respiratory support were pathology of the central nervous system (severe TBI 13.3%, stroke 15.7%, craniocephal tumors 5%), sepsis (8.3%), community-acquired pneumonia (8.8%) and ARDS (10.5%). Controlled modes of mechanical ventilation were predominant in our study (A/C 20.2%, SIMV 45.1%, BIPAP 12.6%), other modes includes pressure support ventilation, ASB and PAV. Prevalence of noninvasive respiratory support was only 1.1%. Mean tidal volume calculated by ideal body weight was 8.13 (6.84 to 9.35) for boys and men and 9.1 (7.6 to 10.9) for girls and women. Mean PEEP was 5 (4 to 8) in the whole study and 6 (5 to 9) for ARDS patients.


Results of the RuVent study are comparable with international epidemiologic multicenter studies. Further investigations are needed for evaluation of the situation in ICUs which are a long distance from big medical centers.


  1. Dreyfuss D, Saumon G: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998, 157: 294-323.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ignatenko O, Protsenko D, Yaroshetskiy A, Gelfand B: Crit Care. 2010, 14 (Suppl 1): P200-10.1186/cc8432.

    PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. ARDS Network: N Engl J Med. 2000, 342: 1301-1308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Esteban A, et al: JAMA. 2002, 287: 345-355. 10.1001/jama.287.3.345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Esteban A, et al: Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008, 177: 170-177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Rights and permissions

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 The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( 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

Cite this article

Protsenko, D., Yaroshetskiy, A., Suvorov, S. et al. Mechanical ventilation in intensive and critical care units of Russia: RuVent national epidemiologic study. Crit Care 16 (Suppl 1), P114 (2012).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Mechanical Ventilation
  • Lung Injury
  • Tidal Volume
  • Pressure Support
  • Ideal Body Weight