Dataset Information

Differential Ventilation Using Flow Control Valves as a Potential Bridge to Full Ventilatory Support during the COVID-19 Crisis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, ventilator sharing was suggested to increase availability of mechanical ventilation. The safety and feasibility of ventilator sharing is unknown.

Methods

A single ventilator in pressure control mode was used with flow control valves to simultaneously ventilate two patients with different lung compliances. The system was first evaluated using high-fidelity human patient simulator mannequins and then tested for 1 h in two pairs of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Patients were matched on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional inspired oxygen tension, and respiratory rate. Tidal volume and peak airway pressure (PMAX) were recorded from each patient using separate independent spirometers and arterial blood gas samples drawn at 0, 30, and 60 min. The authors assessed acid-base status, oxygenation, tidal volume, and PMAX for each patient. Stability was assessed by calculating the coefficient of variation.

Results

The valves performed as expected in simulation, providing a stable tidal volume of 400 ml each to two mannequins with compliance ratios varying from 20:20 to 20:90 ml/cm H2O. The system was then tested in two pairs of patients. Pair 1 was a 49-yr-old woman, ideal body weight 46 kg, and a 55-yr-old man, ideal body weight 64 kg, with lung compliance 27 ml/cm H2O versus 35 ml/cm H2O. The coefficient of variation for tidal volume was 0.2 to 1.7%, and for PMAX 0 to 1.1%. Pair 2 was a 32-yr-old man, ideal body weight 62 kg, and a 56-yr-old woman, ideal body weight 46 kg, with lung compliance 12 ml/cm H2O versus 21 ml/cm H2O. The coefficient of variation for tidal volume was 0.4 to 5.6%, and for PMAX 0 to 2.1%.

Conclusions

Differential ventilation using a single ventilator is feasible. Flow control valves enable delivery of stable tidal volume and PMAX similar to those provided by individual ventilators.

Editor’s perspective

SUBMITTER: Levin MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7359901 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differential Ventilation Using Flow Control Valves as a Potential Bridge to Full Ventilatory Support during the COVID-19 Crisis.

Levin Matthew A MA Shah Anjan A Shah Ronak R Kane Erica E Zhou George G Eisenkraft James B JB Chen Martin D MD

Anesthesiology 20201001 4

<h4>Background</h4>During the COVID-19 pandemic, ventilator sharing was suggested to increase availability of mechanical ventilation. The safety and feasibility of ventilator sharing is unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>A single ventilator in pressure control mode was used with flow control valves to simultaneously ventilate two patients with different lung compliances. The system was first evaluated using high-fidelity human patient simulator mannequins and then tested for 1 h in two pairs of COVID-19 pa ...[more]

PMID: 32639236

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Effective synchronisation of infant respiratory effort with mechanical ventilation may allow adequate gas exchange to occur at lower peak airway pressures, potentially reducing barotrauma and volutrauma and development of air leaks and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. During neurally adjusted ventilatory assist ventilation (NAVA), respiratory support is initiated upon detection of an electrical signal from the diaphragm muscle, and pressure is provided in proportion to and synchronous with electrical activity of the diaphragm (EADi). Compared to other modes of triggered ventilation, this may provide advantages in improving synchrony. OBJECTIVES:Primary• To determine whether NAVA, when used as a primary or rescue mode of ventilation, results in reduced rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or death among term and preterm newborn infants compared to other forms of triggered ventilation• To assess the safety of NAVA by determining whether it leads to greater risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), periventricular leukomalacia, or air leaks when compared to other forms of triggered ventilation Secondary• To determine whether benefits of NAVA differ by gestational age (term or preterm)• To determine whether outcomes of cross-over trials performed during the first two weeks of life include peak pressure requirements, episodes of hypocarbia or hypercarbia, oxygenation index, and the work of breathing SEARCH METHODS: We performed searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cohrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid SP (January 1966 to March 2017); Embase via Ovid SP (January 1980 to March 2017); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCO host (1982 to March 2017); and the Web of Science (1985 to 2017). We searched abstracts from annual meetings of the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) (2000 to 2016); meetings of the European Society of Pediatric Research (published in Pediatric Research); and meetings of the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand (PSANZ) (2005 to 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases to March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials including cross-over trials comparing NAVA with other modes of triggered ventilation (assist control ventilation (ACV),synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation plus pressure support (SIMV ± PS), pressure support ventilation (PSV), or proportional assist ventilation (PAV)) used in neonates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Primary outcomes of interest from randomised controlled trials were all-cause mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD; defined as oxygen requirement at 28 days), and a combined outcome of all-cause mortality or BPD. Secondary outcomes were duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of air leak, incidence of IVH or periventricular leukomalacia, and survival with an oxygen requirement at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age.Outcomes of interest from cross-over trials were maximum fraction of inspired oxygen, mean peak inspiratory pressure, episodes of hypocarbia, and episodes of hypercarbia measured across the time period of each arm of the cross-over. We planned to assess work of breathing; oxygenation index, and thoraco-abdominal asynchrony at the end of the time period of each arm of the cross-over study. MAIN RESULTS:We included one randomised controlled study comparing NAVA versus patient-triggered time-cycled pressure-limited ventilation. This study found no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation, nor in rates of BPD, pneumothorax, or IVH. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Risks and benefits of NAVA compared to other forms of ventilation for neonates are uncertain. Well-designed trials are required to evaluate this new form of triggered ventilation.

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term effect of HFNT versus NIV in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, with the hypothesis that HFNT is non-inferior to NIV on CO2 clearance after 2 h of treatment.MethodsWe performed a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing HFNT and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in nine centers in Italy. Patients were eligible if presented with mild-to-moderate AECOPD (arterial pH 7.25-7.35, PaCO2 ≥ 55 mmHg before ventilator support). Primary endpoint was the mean difference of PaCO2 from baseline to 2 h (non-inferiority margin 10 mmHg) in the per-protocol analysis. Main secondary endpoints were non-inferiority of HFNT to NIV in reducing PaCO2 at 6 h in the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis and rate of treatment changes.ResultsSeventy-nine patients were analyzed (80 patients randomized). Mean differences for PaCO2 reduction from baseline to 2 h were - 6.8 mmHg (± 8.7) in the HFNT and - 9.5 mmHg (± 8.5) in the NIV group (p = 0.404). By 6 h, 32% of patients (13 out of 40) in the HFNT group switched to NIV and one to invasive ventilation. HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV since the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of absolute difference in mean PaCO2 reduction did not reach the non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg (absolute difference 2.7 mmHg; 1-sided 95% CI 6.1; p = 0.0003). Both treatments had a significant effect on PaCO2 reductions over time, and trends were similar between groups. Similar results were found in both per-protocol at 6 h and intention-to-treat analysis.ConclusionsHFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV as initial ventilatory support in decreasing PaCO2 after 2 h of treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg. However, 32% of patients receiving HFNT required NIV by 6 h. Further trials with superiority design should evaluate efficacy toward stronger patient-related outcomes and safety of HFNT in AECOPD.Trial registrationThe study was prospectively registered on December 12, 2017, in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03370666).

Project description:Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) is a proportional ventilatory mode that uses the electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) to offer ventilatory assistance in proportion to patient effort. NAVA has been increasingly used for critically ill patients, but it has not been evaluated during spontaneous breathing trials (SBT). We designed a pilot trial to assess the feasibility of using NAVA during SBTs, and to compare the breathing pattern and patient-ventilator asynchrony of NAVA with Pressure Support (PSV) during SBTs.We conducted a crossover trial in the ICU of a university hospital in Brazil and included mechanically ventilated patients considered ready to undergo an SBT on the day of the study. Patients underwent two SBTs in randomized order: 30 min in PSV of 5 cmH2O or NAVA titrated to generate equivalent peak airway pressure (Paw), with a positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cmH2O. The ICU team, blinded to ventilatory mode, evaluated whether patients passed each SBT. We captured flow, Paw and electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) from the ventilator and used it to calculate respiratory rate (RR), tidal volume (VT), and EAdi. Detection of asynchrony events used waveform analysis and we calculated the asynchrony index as the number of asynchrony events divided by the number of neural cycles.We included 20 patients in the study. All patients passed the SBT in PSV, and three failed the SBT in NAVA. Five patients were reintubated and the extubation failure rate was 25% (95% CI 9-49%). Respiratory parameters were similar in the two modes: VT = 6.1 (5.5-6.5) mL/Kg in NAVA vs. 5.5 (4.8-6.1) mL/Kg in PSV (p = 0.076) and RR = 27 (17-30) rpm in NAVA vs. 26 (20-30) rpm in PSV, p = 0.55. NAVA reduced AI, with a median of 11.5% (4.2-19.7) compared to 24.3% (6.3-34.3) in PSV (p = 0.033).NAVA reduces patient-ventilator asynchrony index and generates a respiratory pattern similar to PSV during SBTs. Patients considered ready for mechanical ventilation liberation may be submitted to an SBT in NAVA using the same objective criteria used for SBTs in PSV.ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01337271 ), registered April 12, 2011.

Project description:BackgroundBedside assessment of low levels of inspiratory effort, which are probably insufficient to prevent muscle atrophy, is challenging. The flow index, which is derived from the analysis of the inspiratory portion of the flow-time waveform, has been recently introduced as a non-invasive parameter to evaluate the inspiratory effort. The primary objective of the present study was to provide an external validation of the flow index to detect low inspiratory effort.MethodsDatasets containing flow, airway pressure, and esophageal pressure (Pes)-time waveforms were obtained from a previously published study in 100 acute brain-injured patients undergoing pressure support ventilation. Waveforms data were analyzed offline. A low inspiratory effort was defined by one of the following criteria, work of breathing (WOB) less than 0.3 J/L, Pes-time product (PTPes) per minute less than 50 cmH2O•s/min, or inspiratory muscle pressure (Pmus) less than 5 cmH2O, adding "or occurrence of ineffective effort more than 10%" for all criteria. The flow index was calculated according to previously reported method. The association of flow index with Pes-derived parameters of effort was investigated. The diagnostic accuracy of the flow index to detect low effort was analyzed.ResultsModerate correlations were found between flow index and WOB, Pmus, and PTPes per breath and per minute (Pearson's correlation coefficients ranged from 0.546 to 0.634, P < 0.001). The incidence of low inspiratory effort was 62%, 51%, and 55% using the definition of WOB, PTPes per minute, and Pmus, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for flow index to diagnose low effort was 0.88, 0.81, and 0.88, for the three respective definition. By using the cutoff value of flow index less than 2.1, the diagnostic performance for the three definitions showed sensitivity of 0.95-0.96, specificity of 0.57-0.71, positive predictive value of 0.70-0.84, and negative predictive value of 0.90-0.93.ConclusionsThe flow index is associated with Pes-based inspiratory effort measurements. Flow index can be used as a valid instrument to screen low inspiratory effort with a high probability to exclude cases without the condition.

Dataset Information

Differential Ventilation Using Flow Control Valves as a Potential Bridge to Full Ventilatory Support during the COVID-19 Crisis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Editor’s perspective

Publications

Differential Ventilation Using Flow Control Valves as a Potential Bridge to Full Ventilatory Support during the COVID-19 Crisis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets