The core of the debate lies in a trade-off that every intensivist performs at the bedside, often several times a day. When lung-protective limits cap the tidal volume, the ventilator must increase the respiratory rate to sustain adequate minute ventilation, the total volume of air moved in and out of the lungs each minute. Minute ventilation is simply the product of tidal volume and respiratory rate, so mathematically the two settings can be traded against one another while the total remains constant. In theory, halving the tidal volume and doubling the rate should deliver the same gas exchange. In practice, the lungs and the body do not obey such neat arithmetic, and the consequences of shifting the balance in one direction or the other have remained surprisingly difficult to pin down.

The reason the trade-off is not neutral lies in the architecture of the respiratory system. Not all inhaled air reaches the alveoli, the tiny sacs where oxygen and carbon dioxide are actually exchanged. A substantial fraction of each breath fills the conducting airways, the trachea, bronchi and bronchioles, where no gas exchange takes place. This volume is known as anatomical dead space. When tidal volume is reduced, each breath carries a proportionally larger burden of dead space gas, air that is inhaled and exhaled without ever contributing to gas exchange. To compensate, the respiratory rate must rise even further than simple minute ventilation calculations would suggest, because the effective, alveolar ventilation falls faster than the total ventilation. Higher rates, in turn, shorten the time available for exhalation, raising the risk of air trapping and the build-up of intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure, a phenomenon that can quietly strain the lungs and the right side of the heart.

Jung and her colleagues frame this problem through the lens of ventilatory efficiency, a concept that captures how much of the work of breathing actually translates into useful gas exchange. Ventilatory efficiency is commonly assessed by relating ventilation to carbon dioxide elimination, and it deteriorates when dead space fraction rises or when the matching between ventilation and perfusion within the lung worsens. The Hannover group contends that when clinicians and researchers trade tidal volume against respiratory rate, they typically track pressures, volumes and driving pressure, but rarely ask whether the resulting pattern of breathing is actually efficient. Two ventilator configurations that look equivalent on a monitor, delivering identical minute ventilation and similar airway pressures, can differ substantially in how much carbon dioxide they clear per liter of air moved, and that difference carries metabolic and mechanical consequences for the patient.

The correspondence appears alongside and responds to a study by Grieco and colleagues, also published in Intensive Care Medicine, which examined how respiratory mechanics modify the impact of ventilator settings on clinical outcomes in patients with acute brain injury. That work adds an important dimension to the debate, because patients with injured brains are exquisitely sensitive to changes in carbon dioxide levels, intrathoracic pressure and the hemodynamic effects of ventilation. In this population, the choice between a low tidal volume with a high rate and a slightly larger tidal volume with a lower rate is not merely a question of lung protection. It can influence cerebral blood flow, intracranial pressure and brain tissue oxygenation, making the trade-off a matter of neurological as well as pulmonary consequence.

To probe the physiological side of the question directly, the Hannover authors point to their own prospective physiological pilot study, published in Annals of Intensive Care, in which they systematically increased respiratory rate during low tidal volume ventilation and measured what happened to ventilatory efficiency and to the mechanical costs of breathing. The study, led by Jung with colleagues including Markou and Storch, was designed to isolate the effect of rate under controlled conditions, allowing the researchers to observe how the efficiency of carbon dioxide elimination and the energetic burden on the respiratory system changed as breaths became faster and smaller. Although pilot studies of this kind involve limited numbers of patients and are intended to generate hypotheses rather than definitive answers, they provide the kind of granular physiological data that large outcome trials often cannot capture.

The significance of this line of research extends beyond the physiology laboratory. Mechanical ventilation is one of the most common interventions in critical care, and the energy cost of breathing, whether performed by the patient’s own muscles or by a machine, is a real metabolic burden for patients whose reserves are already depleted. Inefficient ventilation means that the body, or the ventilator, must move more air to achieve the same gas exchange, and every liter of air moved imposes stress on the lung tissue, on the airways and on the circulation. If a high rate strategy systematically degrades ventilatory efficiency, then the apparent safety of very low tidal volumes may come with a hidden price that current protective ventilation protocols do not account for. Conversely, if efficiency is preserved across a wide range of rate settings, clinicians would gain welcome flexibility in tailoring ventilation to individual patients.

The Hannover authors also emphasize that respiratory mechanics, the elastic and resistive properties of the individual patient’s respiratory system, modify how these trade-offs play out. A stiff, poorly compliant lung in acute respiratory distress syndrome behaves very differently from a more compliant one, and the same ventilator settings can impose very different stresses depending on the underlying disease, the body size and the geometry of the airways. This is precisely the message reinforced by the Grieco study in brain-injured patients, where the impact of ventilator settings on outcomes depended on respiratory mechanics. The implication is uncomfortable but important: there may be no universal answer to the question of how to distribute ventilation between volume and rate, and the optimal balance may need to be determined for each patient rather than dictated by a single protocol.

What the correspondence ultimately calls for is a change in perspective rather than a change in practice. The authors do not dispute the value of low tidal volume ventilation, which remains one of the most robustly supported interventions in critical care. Instead, they argue that ventilatory efficiency deserves a place at the table when ventilator settings are chosen and when clinical trials are designed. Modern ventilators already measure many of the variables needed to estimate dead space and efficiency at the bedside, and incorporating these measurements into routine monitoring could allow clinicians to see not just how much air they are moving, but how effectively that air is working. As the field moves toward increasingly personalized ventilation strategies, the question posed by Jung, Gillmann and Stueber is likely to shape both research agendas and bedside decision-making in the years ahead.

For now, the message for the intensive care community is one of measured caution and renewed curiosity. The trade between tidal volume and respiratory rate is not a zero-sum game played out on the ventilator display; it is a physiological negotiation with consequences for gas exchange, energy expenditure, hemodynamics and, in vulnerable populations such as patients with brain injury, the injured organ itself. By insisting that ventilatory efficiency be considered in that negotiation, the Hannover group has added a compelling voice to a growing conversation about what protective ventilation truly means. The answer to their title question, on the evidence they marshal, appears to be a qualified yes, and the next generation of studies will need to determine exactly how that consideration should change the numbers entered on the ventilator each morning.

Subject of Research: Ventilatory efficiency in the trade-off between tidal volume and respiratory rate during protective mechanical ventilation

Article Title: Should ventilatory efficiency be considered when trading tidal volume against respiratory rate?

Article References: Jung, C., Gillmann, H.-J., & Stueber, T. (2026). Should ventilatory efficiency be considered when trading tidal volume against respiratory rate?. Intensive Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-026-08627-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s00134-026-08627-8

Keywords: mechanical ventilation, tidal volume, respiratory rate, ventilatory efficiency, dead space, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intensive care medicine, respiratory mechanics, carbon dioxide elimination, acute brain injury, lung protection, minute ventilation