Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

There is something deeply appealing about the concept of "physiological positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)" because it sounds scientific, natural, and evidence-based. The rationale for physiological PEEP is glottic closure at the end of expiration, which helps in preventing alveolar collapse and optimizing gas exchange. However, the translation of physiological PEEP to a minimum preset PEEP in mechanically ventilated patients is standard practice, though it lacks evidence. Moreover, PEEP is not innocuous in positive-pressure ventilation and can cause harm by altering respiratory and cardiovascular mechanics. We present a viewpoint challenging the dogma of the application of "physiological PEEP" during invasive mechanical ventilation. The PEEP, like any other ventilation setting, should be based on pathology and lung mechanics and needs to be individualized.How to cite this articleManjunatha GK, Schultz MJ, Nasa P. What if the Intensive Care Unit Abandoned the Physiology Myth-The Case of "Physiological PEEP". Indian J Crit Care Med 2026;30(2):95-98.

More information Original publication

DOI

10.5005/jp-journals-10071-25141

Type

Journal article

Publication Date

2026-02-01T00:00:00+00:00

Volume

30

Pages

95 - 98

Total pages

3

Addresses

D, e, p, a, r, t, m, e, n, t, , o, f, , C, r, i, t, i, c, a, l, , C, a, r, e, , M, e, d, i, c, i, n, e, ,, , F, o, r, t, i, s, , H, o, s, p, i, t, a, l, s, ,, , B, e, n, g, a, l, u, r, u, ,, , K, a, r, n, a, t, a, k, a, ,, , I, n, d, i, a, .