Dataset Information

Autonomous control of ventilation through closed-loop adaptive respiratory pacing.

ABSTRACT: Mechanical ventilation is the standard treatment when volitional breathing is insufficient, but drawbacks include muscle atrophy, alveolar damage, and reduced mobility. Respiratory pacing is an alternative approach using electrical stimulation-induced diaphragm contraction to ventilate the lung. Oxygenation and acid-base homeostasis are maintained by matching ventilation to metabolic needs; however, current pacing technology requires manual tuning and does not respond to dynamic user-specific metabolic demand, thus requiring re-tuning of stimulation parameters as physiological changes occur. Here, we describe respiratory pacing using a closed-loop adaptive controller that can self-adjust in real-time to meet metabolic needs. The controller uses an adaptive Pattern Generator Pattern Shaper (PG/PS) architecture that autonomously generates a desired ventilatory pattern in response to dynamic changes in arterial CO₂ levels and, based on a learning algorithm, modulates stimulation intensity and respiratory cycle duration to evoke this ventilatory pattern. In vivo experiments in rats with respiratory depression and in those with a paralyzed hemidiaphragm confirmed that the controller can adapt and control ventilation to ameliorate hypoventilation and restore normocapnia regardless of the cause of respiratory dysfunction. This novel closed-loop bioelectronic controller advances the state-of-art in respiratory pacing by demonstrating the ability to automatically personalize stimulation patterns and adapt to achieve adequate ventilation.

SUBMITTER: Siu R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7736353 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Autonomous control of ventilation through closed-loop adaptive respiratory pacing.

Siu Ricardo R Abbas James J JJ Fuller David D DD Gomes Jefferson J Renaud Sylvie S Jung Ranu R

Scientific reports 20201214 1

Mechanical ventilation is the standard treatment when volitional breathing is insufficient, but drawbacks include muscle atrophy, alveolar damage, and reduced mobility. Respiratory pacing is an alternative approach using electrical stimulation-induced diaphragm contraction to ventilate the lung. Oxygenation and acid-base homeostasis are maintained by matching ventilation to metabolic needs; however, current pacing technology requires manual tuning and does not respond to dynamic user-specific me ...[more]

PMID: 33318547

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:IntelliVent-ASV™ is a full closed-loop ventilation mode that automatically adjusts ventilation and oxygenation parameters in both passive and active patients. This feasibility study compared oxygenation and ventilation settings automatically selected by IntelliVent-ASV™ among three predefined lung conditions (normal lung, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)) in active and passive patients. The feasibility of IntelliVent-ASV™ use was assessed based on the number of safety events, the need to switch to conventional mode for any medical reason, and sensor failure. METHOD:This prospective observational comparative study included 100 consecutive patients who were invasively ventilated for less than 24 hours at the time of inclusion with an expected duration of ventilation of more than 12 hours. Patients were ventilated using IntelliVent-ASV™ from inclusion to extubation. Settings, automatically selected by the ventilator, delivered ventilation, respiratory mechanics, and gas exchanges were recorded once a day. RESULTS:Regarding feasibility, all patients were ventilated using IntelliVent-ASV™ (392 days in total). No safety issues occurred and there was never a need to switch to an alternative ventilation mode. The fully automated ventilation was used for 95% of the total ventilation time. IntelliVent-ASV™ selected different settings according to lung condition in passive and active patients. In passive patients, tidal volume (VT), predicted body weight (PBW) was significantly different between normal lung (n = 45), ARDS (n = 16) and COPD patients (n = 19) (8.1 (7.3 to 8.9) mL/kg; 7.5 (6.9 to 7.9) mL/kg; 9.9 (8.3 to 11.1) mL/kg, respectively; P 0.05). In passive ARDS patients, FiO2 and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were statistically higher than passive normal lung (35 (33 to 47)% versus 30 (30 to 31)% and 11 (8 to 13) cmH2O versus 5 (5 to 6) cmH2O, respectively; P< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:IntelliVent-ASV™ was safely used in unselected ventilated ICU patients with different lung conditions. Automatically selected oxygenation and ventilation settings were different according to the lung condition, especially in passive patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01489085.

Project description:BackgroundLung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes.MethodProspective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH2O, peak pressure <30 cmH2O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min.ResultsForty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO2/ FiO2 ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH2O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001).ConclusionAmong critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.

Dataset Information

Autonomous control of ventilation through closed-loop adaptive respiratory pacing.

Publications

Autonomous control of ventilation through closed-loop adaptive respiratory pacing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure