Dataset Information

Individualization of PEEP and tidal volume in ARDS patients with electrical impedance tomography: a pilot feasibility study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), electrical impedance tomography (EIT) provides information on alveolar cycling and overdistension as well as assessment of recruitability at the bedside. We developed a protocol for individualization of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and tidal volume (V_T) utilizing EIT-derived information on recruitability, overdistension and alveolar cycling. The aim of this study was to assess whether the EIT-based protocol allows individualization of ventilator settings without causing lung overdistension, and to evaluate its effects on respiratory system compliance, oxygenation and alveolar cycling.

Methods

20 patients with ARDS were included. Initially, patients were ventilated according to the recommendations of the ARDS Network with a V_T of 6 ml per kg predicted body weight and PEEP adjusted according to the lower PEEP/FiO₂ table. Subsequently, ventilator settings were adjusted according to the EIT-based protocol once every 30 min for a duration of 4 h. To assess global overdistension, we determined whether lung stress and strain remained below 27 mbar and 2.0, respectively.

Results

Prospective optimization of mechanical ventilation with EIT led to higher PEEP levels (16.5 [14-18] mbar vs. 10 [8-10] mbar before optimization; p = 0.0001) and similar V_T (5.7 ± 0.92 ml/kg vs. 5.8 ± 0.47 ml/kg before optimization; p = 0.96). Global lung stress remained below 27 mbar in all patients and global strain below 2.0 in 19 out of 20 patients. Compliance remained similar, while oxygenation was significantly improved and alveolar cycling was reduced after EIT-based optimization.

Conclusions

Adjustment of PEEP and V_T using the EIT-based protocol led to individualization of ventilator settings with improved oxygenation and reduced alveolar cycling without promoting global overdistension. Trial registrationThis study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02703012) on March 9, 2016 before including the first patient.

SUBMITTER: Becher T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8171998 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level with best respiratory system compliance (Crs) is frequently used for PEEP selection in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. On occasion, two similar best Crs (where the difference between the Crs of two PEEP levels is < 1 ml/cm H2O) may be identified during decremental PEEP titration. Selecting PEEP under such conditions is challenging. The aim of this study was to provide supplementary rationale for PEEP selection by assessing the global and regional ventilation distributions between two PEEP levels in this situation.MethodsEight ARDS cases with similar best Crs at two different PEEP levels were analyzed using examination-specific electrical impedance tomography (EIT) measures and airway stress index (SIaw). Five Crs were measured at PEEP values of 25 cm H2O (PEEP25), 20 cm H2O (PEEP20), 15 cm H2O (PEEPH), 11 cm H2O (PEEPI), and 7 cm H2O (PEEPL). The higher PEEP value of the two PEEPs with similar best Crs was designated as PEEPupper, while the lower designated as PEEPlower.ResultsPEEPH and PEEPI shared the best Crs in two cases, while similar Crs was found at PEEPI and PEEPL in the remaining six cases. SIaw was higher with PEEPupper as compared to PEEPlower (1.06 ± 0.10 versus 0.99 ± 0.09, p = 0.05). Proportion of lung hyperdistension was significantly higher with PEEPupper than PEEPlower (7.0 ± 5.1% versus 0.3 ± 0.5%, p = 0.0002). In contrast, proportion of recruitable lung collapse was higher with PEEPlower than PEEPupper (18.6 ± 4.4% versus 5.9 ± 3.7%, p < 0.0001). Cyclic alveolar collapse and reopening during tidal breathing was higher at PEEPlower than PEEPupper (34.4 ± 19.3% versus 16.0 ± 9.1%, p = 0.046). The intratidal gas distribution (ITV) index was also significantly higher at PEEPlower than PEEPupper (2.6 ± 1.3 versus 1.8 ± 0.7, p = 0.042).ConclusionsPEEPupper is a rational selection in ARDS cases with two similar best Crs. EIT provides additional information for the selection of PEEP in such circumstances.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40846-021-00668-2.

Project description:BackgroundAnimal trials contribute to major achievements in medical science. The so-called lavage model is frequently used to evaluate ventilation strategies in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) using electrical impedance tomography (EIT). But, the lavage model itself might have systematic impacts on EIT parameters. Therefore, we established an additional experimental model, in which ARDS is caused by intravenously administered lipopolysaccharide (LPS). In this study, we want to examine if EIT measurements provide consistent results in both experimental models or whether the pathophysiology of the model influences the findings. Overall, we want to compare both experimental models regarding clinical parameters and EIT-derived indices, namely the global inhomogeneity (GI) index and the regional ventilation delay (RVD) index.MethodsNineteen pigs were included in this study, allocated to the control group (CO; n = 5), lavage group (LAV; n = 7) and LPS group (LPS; n = 7). After baseline measurements and the establishment of ARDS, assessment of respiratory mechanics, hemodynamics, gas exchange and EIT recordings were performed hourly over eight hours.ResultsIn both experimental ARDS models, EIT measurements provided reliable results. But, the GI and the RVD index did not show consistent results as compared to the CO group. Initially, GI and RVD index were higher in the LAV group but not in the LPS group as compared to the CO group. This effect disappeared during the study. Furthermore, the GI index and the RVD index were higher in the LAV group compared to the LPS group in the beginning as well. This, once again, disappeared. Clinical lung injury parameters remained more stable when using LPS.ConclusionThe two models showed quite different influences on the GI and RVD index. This implies, that the underlying pathophysiology affects EIT parameters and thus the findings. Hence, translation to EIT-guided clinical therapy in humans suffering from ARDS might be limited.

Project description:BackgroundIndividualised bedside adjustment of mechanical ventilation is a standard strategy in acute coma neurocritical care patients. This involves customising positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), which could improve ventilation homogeneity and arterial oxygenation. This study aimed to determine whether PEEP titrated by electrical impedance tomography (EIT) results in different lung ventilation homogeneity when compared to standard PEEP of 5 cmH2O in mechanically ventilated patients with healthy lungs.MethodsIn this prospective single-centre study, we evaluated 55 acute adult neurocritical care patients starting controlled ventilation with PEEPs close to 5 cmH2O. Next, the optimal PEEP was identified by EIT-guided decremental PEEP titration, probing PEEP levels between 9 and 2 cmH2O and finding the minimal amount of collapse and overdistension. EIT-derived parameters of ventilation homogeneity were evaluated before and after the PEEP titration and after the adjustment of PEEP to its optimal value. Non-EIT-based parameters, such as peripheral capillary Hb saturation (SpO2) and end-tidal pressure of CO2, were recorded hourly and analysed before PEEP titration and after PEEP adjustment.ResultsThe mean PEEP value before titration was 4.75 ± 0.94 cmH2O (ranging from 3 to max 8 cmH2O), 4.29 ± 1.24 cmH2O after titration and before PEEP adjustment, and 4.26 ± 1.5 cmH2O after PEEP adjustment. No statistically significant differences in ventilation homogeneity were observed due to the adjustment of PEEP found by PEEP titration. We also found non-significant changes in non-EIT-based parameters following the PEEP titration and subsequent PEEP adjustment, except for the mean arterial pressure, which dropped statistically significantly (with a mean difference of 3.2 mmHg, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.0 cmH2O, p < 0.001).ConclusionAdjusting PEEP to values derived from PEEP titration guided by EIT does not provide any significant changes in ventilation homogeneity as assessed by EIT to ventilated patients with healthy lungs, provided the change in PEEP does not exceed three cmH2O. Thus, a reduction in PEEP determined through PEEP titration that is not greater than 3 cmH2O from an initial value of 5 cmH2O is unlikely to affect ventilation homogeneity significantly, which could benefit mechanically ventilated neurocritical care patients.