Dataset Information

Physiologic Analysis and Clinical Performance of the Ventilatory Ratio in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale

Pulmonary dead space fraction (Vd/Vt) is an independent predictor of mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Yet, it is seldom used in practice. The ventilatory ratio is a simple bedside index that can be calculated using routinely measured respiratory variables and is a measure of impaired ventilation. Ventilatory ratio is defined as [minute ventilation (ml/min) × Pa_CO₂ (mm Hg)]/(predicted body weight × 100 × 37.5).

Objectives

To determine the relation of ventilatory ratio with Vd/Vt in ARDS.

Methods

First, in a single-center, prospective observational study of ARDS, we tested the association of Vd/Vt with ventilatory ratio. With in-hospital mortality as the primary outcome and ventilator-free days as the secondary outcome, we tested the role of ventilatory ratio as an outcome predictor. The findings from this study were further verified in secondary analyses of two NHLBI ARDS Network randomized controlled trials.

Measurements and main results

Ventilatory ratio positively correlated with Vd/Vt. Ordinal groups of ventilatory ratio had significantly higher Vd/Vt. Ventilatory ratio was independently associated with increased risk of mortality after adjusting for Pa_O₂/Fi_O₂, and positive end-expiratory pressure (odds ratio, 1.51; P = 0.024) and after adjusting for Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (odds ratio, 1.59; P = 0.04). These findings were further replicated in secondary analyses of two separate NHLBI randomized controlled trials.

Conclusions

Ventilatory ratio correlates well with Vd/Vt in ARDS, and higher values at baseline are associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes. These results are promising for the use of ventilatory ratio as a simple bedside index of impaired ventilation in ARDS.

SUBMITTER: Sinha P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6363976 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDifferences in physiology of ARDS have been described between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to compare initial values and longitudinal changes in respiratory system compliance (CRS), oxygenation parameters and ventilatory ratio (VR) in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS matched on oxygenation.Methods135 patients with COVID-19 ARDS from two centers were included in a physiological study; 767 non-COVID-19 ARDS from a clinical trial were used for the purpose of at least 1:2 matching. A propensity-matching was based on age, severity score, oxygenation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and pulmonary cause of ARDS and allowed to include 112 COVID-19 and 198 non-COVID pulmonary ARDS.ResultsThe two groups were similar on initial oxygenation. COVID-19 patients had a higher body mass index, higher CRS at day 1 (median [IQR], 35 [28-44] vs 32 [26-38] ml cmH2O-1, p = 0.037). At day 1, CRS was correlated with oxygenation only in non-COVID-19 patients; 61.6% and 68.2% of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS were still ventilated at day 7 (p = 0.241). Oxygenation became lower in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients at days 3 and 7, while CRS became similar. VR was lower at day 1 in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients but increased from day 1 to 7 only in COVID-19 patients. VR was higher at days 1, 3 and 7 in the COVID-19 patients ventilated using heat and moisture exchangers compared to heated humidifiers. After adjustment on PaO2/FiO2, PEEP and humidification device, CRS and VR were found not different between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at day 7. Day-28 mortality did not differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients (25.9% and 23.7%, respectively, p = 0.666).ConclusionsFor a similar initial oxygenation, COVID-19 ARDS initially differs from classical ARDS by a higher CRS, dissociated from oxygenation. CRS become similar for patients remaining on mechanical ventilation during the first week of evolution, but oxygenation becomes lower in COVID-19 patients.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT04385004.

Project description:BackgroundHeterogeneity is an inherent nature of ARDS. Recruitment-to-inflation ratio has been developed to identify the patients who has lung recruitablity. This technique might be useful to identify the patients that match specific interventions, such as higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) or prone position or both. We aimed to evaluate the physiological effects of PEEP and body position on lung mechanics and regional lung inflation in COVID-19-associated ARDS and to propose the optimal ventilatory strategy based on recruitment-to-inflation ratio.MethodsPatients with COVID-19-associated ARDS were consecutively enrolled. Lung recruitablity (recruitment-to-inflation ratio) and regional lung inflation (electrical impedance tomography [EIT]) were measured with a combination of body position (supine or prone) and PEEP (low 5 cmH2O or high 15 cmH2O). The utility of recruitment-to-inflation ratio to predict responses to PEEP were examined with EIT.ResultsForty-three patients were included. Recruitment-to-inflation ratio was 0.68 (IQR 0.52-0.84), separating high recruiter versus low recruiter. Oxygenation was the same between two groups. In high recruiter, a combination of high PEEP with prone position achieved the highest oxygenation and less dependent silent spaces in EIT (vs. low PEEP in both positions) without increasing non-dependent silent spaces in EIT. In low recruiter, low PEEP in prone position resulted in better oxygenation (vs. both PEEPs in supine position), less dependent silent spaces (vs. low PEEP in supine position) and less non-dependent silent spaces (vs. high PEEP in both positions). Recruitment-to-inflation ratio was positively correlated with the improvement in oxygenation and respiratory system compliance, the decrease in dependent silent spaces, and was inversely correlated with the increase in non-dependent silent spaces, when applying high PEEP.ConclusionsRecruitment-to-inflation ratio may be useful to personalize PEEP in COVID-19-associated ARDS. Higher PEEP in prone position and lower PEEP in prone position decreased the amount of dependent silent spaces (suggesting lung collapse) without increasing the amount of non-dependent silent spaces (suggesting overinflation) in high recruiter and in low recruiter, respectively.

Project description:Identifying patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a recognized challenge. Experts often have only moderate agreement when applying the clinical definition of ARDS to patients. However, no study has fully examined the implications of low reliability measurement of ARDS on clinical studies.To investigate how the degree of variability in ARDS measurement commonly reported in clinical studies affects study power, the accuracy of treatment effect estimates, and the measured strength of risk factor associations.We examined the effect of ARDS measurement error in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of ARDS-specific treatments and cohort studies using simulations. We varied the reliability of ARDS diagnosis, quantified as the interobserver reliability (?-statistic) between two reviewers. In RCT simulations, patients identified as having ARDS were enrolled, and when measurement error was present, patients without ARDS could be enrolled. In cohort studies, risk factors as potential predictors were analyzed using reviewer-identified ARDS as the outcome variable.Lower reliability measurement of ARDS during patient enrollment in RCTs seriously degraded study power. Holding effect size constant, the sample size necessary to attain adequate statistical power increased by more than 50% as reliability declined, although the result was sensitive to ARDS prevalence. In a 1,400-patient clinical trial, the sample size necessary to maintain similar statistical power increased to over 1,900 when reliability declined from perfect to substantial (??=?0.72). Lower reliability measurement diminished the apparent effectiveness of an ARDS-specific treatment from a 15.2% (95% confidence interval, 9.4-20.9%) absolute risk reduction in mortality to 10.9% (95% confidence interval, 4.7-16.2%) when reliability declined to moderate (??=?0.51). In cohort studies, the effect on risk factor associations was similar.ARDS measurement error can seriously degrade statistical power and effect size estimates of clinical studies. The reliability of ARDS measurement warrants careful attention in future ARDS clinical studies.