Dataset Information

The relationship of tidal volume and driving pressure with mortality in hypoxic patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To determine whether tidal volume/predicted body weight (TV/PBW) or driving pressure (DP) are associated with mortality in a heterogeneous population of hypoxic mechanically ventilated patients.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study involving 18 intensive care units included consecutive patients ≥18 years old, receiving mechanical ventilation for ≥3 days, with a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤300 mmHg, whether or not they met full criteria for ARDS. The main outcome was hospital mortality. Multiple logistic regression (MLR) incorporated TV/PBW, DP, and potential confounders including age, APACHE IVa® predicted hospital mortality, respiratory system compliance (CRS), and PaO2/FiO2. Predetermined strata of TV/PBW were compared using MLR.

Results

Our cohort comprised 5,167 patients with mean age 61.9 years, APACHE IVa® score 79.3, PaO2/FiO2 166 mmHg and CRS 40.5 ml/cm H2O. Regression analysis revealed that patients receiving DP one standard deviation above the mean or higher (≥19 cmH20) had an adjusted odds ratio for mortality (ORmort) = 1.10 (95% CI: 1.06-1.13, p = 0.009). Regression analysis showed a U-shaped relationship between strata of TV/PBW and adjusted mortality. Using TV/PBW 4-6 ml/kg as the referent group, patients receiving >10 ml/kg had similar adjusted ORmort, but those receiving 6-7, 7-8 and 8-10 ml/kg had lower adjusted ORmort (95%CI) of 0.81 (0.65-1.00), 0.78 (0.63-0.97) and 0.80 0.67-1.01) respectively. The adjusted ORmort in patients receiving 4-6 ml/kg was 1.26 (95%CI: 1.04-1.52) compared to patients receiving 6-10 ml/kg.

Conclusions

Driving pressures ≥19 cmH2O were associated with increased adjusted mortality. TV/PBW 4-6ml/kg were used in less than 15% of patients and associated with increased adjusted mortality compared to TV/PBW 6-10 ml/kg used in 82% of patients. Prospective clinical trials are needed to prove whether limiting DP or the use of TV/PBW 6-10 ml/kg versus 4-6 ml/kg benefits mortality.

SUBMITTER: Raschke RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8351937 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: The ideal ventilation strategy for patients with massive brain damage requires better elucidation. We hypothesized that in the presence of massive brain injury, a ventilation strategy using low (6 mL/kg) tidal volume (VT) ventilation with open lung positive end-expiratory pressure set according to the minimal static elastance of the respiratory system (LVT/OLPEEP), attenuate the impact of massive brain damage on gas-exchange, respiratory mechanics, lung histology and whole genome alterations compared with high (12 mL/kg) VT and low PEEP ventilation (HVT/LPEEP). Methods: Twenty-eight adult male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1) no brain damage (NBD) with LVT/OLPEEP; 2) NBD with HVT/LPEEP; 3) brain damage (BD) with LVT/OLPEEP; and 4) BD with HVT/LPEEP. All animals were mechanically ventilated for six hours. Brain damage was induced by an inflated balloon catheter into the epidural space. Hemodynamics was recorded and blood gas analysis was performed hourly. At the end of the experiment, respiratory system mechanics and lung histology were analysed. Whole genome analysis was performed using Affimetrix gene chips and confirmatory real-time PCR. Results: In NBD, both LVT/OLPEEP and HVT/LPEEP did not affect arterial blood gases, as well as whole genome expression changes and real-time PCR. In BD, LVT/OLPEEP, compared to HVT/LPEEP, reduced lung damage according to histology, genome analysis and real-time PCR with decreased interleukin (IL-6), cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant (CINC)-1 and angiopoietin-4 expressions. LVT/OLPEEP compared to HVT/LPEEP improved overall survival. Conclusions: In BD, LVT/OLPEEP minimizes lung morpho-functional changes and inflammation compared to HVT/LPEEP. LVT/OLPEEP might represent a suitable ventilatory strategy in massive brain damage. 24 Wistar rats - lung samples, 4 groups, 1. non-braindamaged/braindead high tidal volume ventilation, 2. non-braindamaged/braindead best PEEP ventilation, 3. Braindamaged/braindead high tidal volume ventilation, 4. Braindamaged/braindead best PEEP ventilation

Project description:BackgroundOutcome 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Low tidal volume (= tidal volume ? 6?mL/kg, predicted body weight) ventilation using volume control benefits patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway pressure release ventilation is an alternative to low tidal volume-volume control ventilation, but the release breaths generated are variable and can exceed tidal volume breaths of low tidal volume-volume control. We evaluate the application of a low tidal volume-compatible airway pressure release ventilation protocol that manages release volumes on both clinical and feasibility endpoints. DESIGN:We designed a prospective randomized trial in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We randomized patients to low tidal volume-volume control, low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation, and traditional airway pressure release ventilation with a planned enrollment of 246 patients. The study was stopped early because of low enrollment and inability to consistently achieve tidal volumes less than 6.5?mL/kg in the low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation arm. Although the primary clinical study endpoint was PaO2/FIO2 on study day 3, we highlight the feasibility outcomes related to tidal volumes in both arms. SETTING:Four Intermountain Healthcare tertiary ICUs. PATIENTS:Adult ICU patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS:Low tidal volume-volume control, airway pressure release ventilation, and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We observed wide variability and higher tidal (release for airway pressure release ventilation) volumes in both airway pressure release ventilation (8.6?mL/kg; 95% CI, 7.8-9.6) and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (8.0; 95% CI, 7.3-8.9) than volume control (6.8; 95% CI, 6.2-7.5; p = 0.005) with no difference between airway pressure release ventilation and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (p = 0.58). Recognizing the limitations of small sample size, we observed no difference in 52 patients in day 3 PaO2/ FIO2 (p = 0.92). We also observed no significant difference between arms in sedation, vasoactive medications, or occurrence of pneumothorax. CONCLUSIONS:Airway pressure release ventilation resulted in release volumes often exceeding 12?mL/kg despite a protocol designed to target low tidal volume ventilation. Current airway pressure release ventilation protocols are unable to achieve consistent and reproducible delivery of low tidal volume ventilation goals. A large-scale efficacy trial of low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation is not feasible at this time in the absence of an explicit, generalizable, and reproducible low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation protocol.

Project description:BACKGROUND:We observed that increasing fresh gas flow (FGF) decreased exhaled tidal volume (VT) during pressure control ventilation (PCV). A literature search produced no such description whereby unintended VT changes occur with FGF changes during PCV. METHODS:To model an infant's lungs, 1 lung of a mechanical lung model (Dual Adult TTL 1600; Michigan Instruments, Inc, Grand Rapids, MI) was set at a compliance of 0.0068 L/cm H2O. An Rp50 resistor (27.2 cm H2O/L/s at 15 L/min) simulated normal bronchial resistance. The simulated lung was connected to a pediatric breathing circuit via a 3.5-mm cuffed endotracheal tube. A ventilator with PCV capability (Model 7900; Aestiva, GE Healthcare, Madison, WI) measured exhaled VT, and a flow monitor (NICO; Respironics, Murraysville, PA) measured peak inspiratory flow, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and peak inspiratory pressure. In PCV mode, exhaled VT displayed by the ventilator at FGF rates of 1, 6, 10, and 15 L/min was manually recorded across multiple ventilator settings. This protocol was repeated for the Avance CS2 anesthesia machine (GE Healthcare). RESULTS:For the Aestiva, higher FGF rates in PCV mode decreased exhaled VT. Exhaled VT for FGFs of 1, 6, 10, and 15 L/min were on average 48, 34.9, 16.5, and 10 mL, respectively, at ventilator settings of inspiratory pressure of 10 cm H2O, PEEP of 0 cm H2O, and respiratory rate of 20 breaths/min. This is a decrease by up to 27%, 65.6%, and 79.2% when FGFs of 6, 10, and 15 L/min are compared with a FGF of 1 L/min, respectively. In the GE Avance CS2 at the same ventilator settings, VT for FGF rates of 1, 6, 10, and 15 L/min were on average 46, 43, 40.4, and 39.7 mL, respectively. The FGF effect on VT was not as pronounced with the GE Avance CS2 as with the GE Aestiva. CONCLUSIONS:FGF has a significant effect on VT during PCV in the Aestiva bellows ventilator, suggesting caution when changing FGF during PCV in infants. Our hypothesis is that at higher FGF rates, an inadvertent PEEP is developed by the flow resistance of the ventilator relief valve that is not recognized by the ventilator. In turn, less change in pressure is needed to reach the set inspiratory pressure, resulting in lower VT delivery at higher FGF rates. This underappreciated FGF-VT interaction during PCV with a bellows ventilator may be clinically significant in pediatric patients; prospective data collection in patients is needed for further evaluation.

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.