Dataset Information

The predictive validity for mortality of the driving pressure and the mechanical power of ventilation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Outcome prediction in critically ill patients under invasive ventilation remains extremely challenging. The driving pressure (ΔP) and the mechanical power of ventilation (MP) are associated with patient-centered outcomes like mortality and duration of ventilation. The objective of this study was to assess the predictive validity for mortality of the ΔP and the MP at 24 h after start of invasive ventilation.

Methods

This is a post hoc analysis of an observational study in intensive care unit patients, restricted to critically ill patients receiving invasive ventilation for at least 24 h. The two exposures of interest were the modified ΔP and the MP at 24 h after start of invasive ventilation. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality; secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality. The predictive validity was measured as incremental 90-day mortality beyond that predicted by the Acute Physiology, Age and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score and the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II.

Results

The analysis included 839 patients with a 90-day mortality of 42%. The median modified ΔP at 24 h was 15 [interquartile range 12 to 19] cm H₂O; the median MP at 24 h was 206 [interquartile range 145 to 298] 10^-3 J/min/kg predicted body weight (PBW). Both parameters were associated with 90-day mortality (odds ratio (OR) for 1 cm H₂O increase in the modified ΔP, 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.08]; P < 0.001; OR for 100 10^-3 J/min/kg PBW increase in the MP, 1.20 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.33]; P < 0.001). Area under the ROC for 90-day mortality of the modified ΔP and the MP were 0.70 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.74] and 0.69 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.73], which was neither different from that of the APACHE IV score nor that of the SAPS II.

Conclusions

In adult patients under invasive ventilation, the modified ΔP and the MP at 24 h are associated with 90 day mortality. Neither the modified ΔP nor the MP at 24 h has predictive validity beyond the APACHE IV score and the SAPS II.

SUBMITTER: van Meenen DMP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7746416 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMechanical power (MP) is the energy delivered to the respiratory system over time during mechanical ventilation. Our aim was to compare the currently available methods to calculate MP during volume- and pressure-controlled ventilation, comparing different equations with the geometric reference method, to understand whether the easier to use surrogate formulas were suitable for the everyday clinical practice. This would warrant a more widespread use of mechanical power to promote lung protection.MethodsForty respiratory failure patients, sedated and paralyzed for clinical reasons, were ventilated in volume-controlled ventilation, at two inspiratory flows (30 and 60 L/min), and pressure-controlled ventilation with a similar tidal volume. Mechanical power was computed both with the geometric method, as the area between the inspiratory limb of the airway pressure and the volume, and with two algebraic methods, a comprehensive and a surrogate formula.ResultsThe bias between the MP computed by the geometric method and by the comprehensive algebraic method during volume-controlled ventilation was respectively 0.053 (0.77, - 0.81) J/min and - 0.4 (0.70, - 1.50) J/min at low and high flows (r2 = 0.96 and 0.97, p < 0.01). The MP measured and computed by the two methods were highly correlated (r2 = 0.95 and 0.94, p < 0.01) with a bias of - 0.0074 (0.91, - 0.93) and - 1.0 (0.45, - 2.52) J/min at high-low flows. During pressure-controlled ventilation, the bias between the MP measured and the one calculated with the comprehensive and simplified methods was correlated (r2 = 0.81, 0.94, p < 0.01) with mean differences of - 0.001 (2.05, - 2.05) and - 0.81 (2.11, - 0.48) J/min.ConclusionsBoth for volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation, the surrogate formulas approximate the reference method well enough to warrant their use in the everyday clinical practice. Given that these formulas require nothing more than the variables already displayed by the intensive care ventilator, a more widespread use of mechanical power should be encouraged to promote lung protection against ventilator-induced lung injury.

Project description:Driving pressure (?Prs) across the respiratory system is suggested as the strongest predictor of hospital mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We wonder whether this result is related to the range of tidal volume (VT). Therefore, we investigated ?Prs in two trials in which strict lung-protective mechanical ventilation was applied in ARDS. Our working hypothesis was that ?Prs is a risk factor for mortality just like compliance (Crs) or plateau pressure (Pplat,rs) of the respiratory system.We performed secondary analysis of data from 787 ARDS patients enrolled in two independent randomized controlled trials evaluating distinct adjunctive techniques while they were ventilated as in the low VT arm of the ARDSnet trial. For this study, we used VT, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), Pplat,rs, Crs, ?Prs, and respiratory rate recorded 24 hours after randomization, and compared them between survivors and nonsurvivors at day 90. Patients were followed for 90 days after inclusion. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used for mortality at day 90. If colinearity between ?Prs, Crs, and Pplat,rs was verified, specific Cox models were used for each of them.Both trials enrolled 805 patients of whom 787 had day-1 data available, and 533 of these survived. In the univariate analysis, ?Prs averaged 13.7?±?3.7 and 12.8?±?3.7 cmH2O (P?=?0.002) in nonsurvivors and survivors, respectively. Colinearity between ?Prs, Crs and Pplat,rs, which was expected as these variables are mathematically coupled, was statistically significant. Hazard ratios from the Cox models for day-90 mortality were 1.05 (1.02-1.08) (P?=?0.005), 1.05 (1.01-1.08) (P?=?0.008) and 0.985 (0.972-0.985) (P?=?0.029) for ?Prs, Pplat,rs and Crs, respectively. PEEP and VT were not associated with death in any model.When ventilating patients with low VT, ?Prs is a risk factor for death in ARDS patients, as is Pplat,rs or Crs. As our data originated from trials from which most ARDS patients were excluded due to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, these findings must be validated in independent observational studies in patients ventilated with a lung protective strategy.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00299650 . Registered 6 March 2006 for the Acurasys trial. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00527813 . Registered 10 September 2007 for the Proseva trial.