Dataset Information

Effects of Different Levels of Variability and Pressure Support Ventilation on Lung Function in Patients With Mild–Moderate Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

ABSTRACT: Background: Variable pressure support ventilation (vPSV) is an assisted ventilation mode that varies the level of pressure support on a breath-by-breath basis to restore the physiological variability of breathing activity. We aimed to compare the effects of vPSV at different levels of variability and pressure support (ΔPS) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: This study was a crossover randomized clinical trial. We included patients with mild to moderate ARDS already ventilated in conventional pressure support ventilation (PSV). The study consisted of two blocks of interventions, and variability during vPSV was set as the coefficient of variation of the ΔPS level. In the first block, the effects of three levels of variability were tested at constant ΔPS: 0% (PSV0%, conventional PSV), 15% (vPSV15%), and 30% (vPSV30%). In the second block, two levels of variability (0% and variability set to achieve ±5 cmH2O variability) were tested at two ΔPS levels (baseline ΔPS and ΔPS reduced by 5 cmH2O from baseline). The following four ventilation strategies were tested in the second block: PSV with baseline ΔPS and 0% variability (PSVBL) or ±5 cmH2O variability (vPSVBL), PSV with ΔPS reduced by 5 cmH2O and 0% variability (PSV−5) or ±5 cmH2O variability (vPSV−5). Outcomes included gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and patient-ventilator asynchronies. Results: The study enrolled 20 patients. In the first block of interventions, oxygenation and respiratory mechanics parameters did not differ between vPSV15% and vPSV30% compared with PSV0%. The variability of tidal volume (VT) was higher with vPSV15% and vPSV30% compared with PSV0%. The incidence of asynchronies and the variability of transpulmonary pressure (PL) were higher with vPSV30% compared with PSV0%. In the second block of interventions, different levels of pressure support with and without variability did not change oxygenation. The variability of VT and PL was higher with vPSV−5 compared with PSV−5, but not with vPSVBL compared with PSVBL. Conclusion: In patients with mild-moderate ARDS, the addition of variability did not improve oxygenation at different pressure support levels. Moreover, high variability levels were associated with worse patient-ventilator synchrony. Clinical Trial Registration:www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01683669.

SUBMITTER: Ball L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8569865 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe hypothesized that a decrease in frequency of controlled breaths during biphasic positive airway pressure (BIVENT), associated with an increase in spontaneous breaths, whether pressure support (PSV)-assisted or not, would mitigate lung and diaphragm damage in mild experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).Materials and methodsWistar rats received Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide intratracheally. After 24 hours, animals were randomly assigned to: 1) BIVENT-100+PSV0%: airway pressure (Phigh) adjusted to VT = 6 mL/kg and frequency of controlled breaths (f) = 100 bpm; 2) BIVENT-50+PSV0%: Phigh adjusted to VT = 6 mL/kg and f = 50 bpm; 3) BIVENT-50+PSV50% (PSV set to half the Phigh reference value, i.e., PSV50%); or 4) BIVENT-50+PSV100% (PSV equal to Phigh reference value, i.e., PSV100%). Positive end-expiratory pressure (Plow) was equal to 5 cmH2O. Nonventilated animals were used for lung and diaphragm histology and molecular biology analysis.ResultsBIVENT-50+PSV0%, compared to BIVENT-100+PSV0%, reduced the diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) score, the expression of amphiregulin (marker of alveolar stretch) and muscle atrophy F-box (marker of diaphragm atrophy). In BIVENT-50 groups, the increase in PSV (BIVENT-50+PSV50% versus BIVENT-50+PSV100%) yielded better lung mechanics and less alveolar collapse, interstitial edema, cumulative DAD score, as well as gene expressions associated with lung inflammation, epithelial and endothelial cell damage in lung tissue, and muscle ring finger protein 1 (marker of muscle proteolysis) in diaphragm. Transpulmonary peak pressure (Ppeak,L) and pressure-time product per minute (PTPmin) at Phigh were associated with lung damage, while increased spontaneous breathing at Plow did not promote lung injury.ConclusionIn the ARDS model used herein, during BIVENT, the level of PSV and the phase of the respiratory cycle in which the inspiratory effort occurs affected lung and diaphragm damage. Partitioning of inspiratory effort and transpulmonary pressure in spontaneous breaths at Plow and Phigh is required to minimize VILI.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Although pediatric intensivists philosophically embrace lung protective ventilation for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome, we hypothesized that ventilator management varies. We assessed ventilator management by evaluating changes to ventilator settings in response to blood gases, pulse oximetry, or end-tidal CO2. We also assessed the potential impact that a pediatric mechanical ventilation protocol adapted from National Heart Lung and Blood Institute acute respiratory distress syndrome network protocols could have on reducing variability by comparing actual changes in ventilator settings to those recommended by the protocol. DESIGN:Prospective observational study. SETTING:Eight tertiary care U.S. PICUs, October 2011 to April 2012. PATIENTS:One hundred twenty patients (age range 17 d to 18 yr) with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Two thousand hundred arterial and capillary blood gases, 3,964 oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry, and 2,757 end-tidal CO2 values were associated with 3,983 ventilator settings. Ventilation mode at study onset was pressure control 60%, volume control 19%, pressure-regulated volume control 18%, and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation 3%. Clinicians changed FIO2 by ±5 or ±10% increments every 8 hours. Positive end-expiratory pressure was limited at ~10?cm H2O as oxygenation worsened, lower than would have been recommended by the protocol. In the first 72 hours of mechanical ventilation, maximum tidal volume/kg using predicted versus actual body weight was 10.3 (8.5-12.9) (median [interquartile range]) versus 9.2?mL/kg (7.6-12.0) (p < 0.001). Intensivists made changes similar to protocol recommendations 29% of the time, opposite to the protocol's recommendation 12% of the time and no changes 56% of the time. CONCLUSIONS:Ventilator management varies substantially in children with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Opportunities exist to minimize variability and potentially injurious ventilator settings by using a pediatric mechanical ventilation protocol offering adequately explicit instructions for given clinical situations. An accepted protocol could also reduce confounding by mechanical ventilation management in a clinical trial.

Project description:BackgroundThe driving pressure of the respiratory system is a valuable indicator of global lung stress during passive mechanical ventilation. Monitoring lung stress in assisted ventilation is indispensable, but achieving passive conditions in spontaneously breathing patients to measure driving pressure is challenging. The accuracy of the morphology of airway pressure (Paw) during end-inspiratory occlusion to assure passive conditions during pressure support ventilation has not been examined.MethodsRetrospective analysis of end-inspiratory occlusions obtained from critically ill patients during pressure support ventilation. Flow, airway, esophageal, gastric, and transdiaphragmatic pressures were analyzed. The rise of gastric pressure during occlusion with a constant/decreasing transdiaphragmatic pressure was used to identify and quantify the expiratory muscle activity. The Paw during occlusion was classified in three patterns, based on the differences at three pre-defined points after occlusion (0.3, 1, and 2 s): a "passive-like" decrease followed by plateau, a pattern with "clear plateau," and an "irregular rise" pattern, which included all cases of late or continuous increase, with or without plateau.ResultsData from 40 patients and 227 occlusions were analyzed. Expiratory muscle activity during occlusion was identified in 79% of occlusions, and at all levels of assist. After classifying occlusions according to Paw pattern, expiratory muscle activity was identified in 52%, 67%, and 100% of cases of Paw of passive-like, clear plateau, or irregular rise pattern, respectively. The driving pressure was evaluated in the 133 occlusions having a passive-like or clear plateau pattern in Paw. An increase in gastric pressure was present in 46%, 62%, and 64% of cases at 0.3, 1, and 2 s, respectively, and it was greater than 2 cmH2O, in 10%, 20%, and 15% of cases at 0.3, 1, and 2 s, respectively.ConclusionsThe pattern of Paw during an end-inspiratory occlusion in pressure support cannot assure the absence of expiratory muscle activity and accurate measurement of driving pressure. Yet, because driving pressure can only be overestimated due to expiratory muscle contraction, in everyday practice, a low driving pressure indicates an absence of global lung over-stretch. A measurement of high driving pressure should prompt further diagnostic workup, such as a measurement of esophageal pressure.

Project description:PurposeExperimental animal models of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have shown that the updated airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) methodologies may significantly improve oxygenation, maximize lung recruitment, and attenuate lung injury, without circulatory depression. This led us to hypothesize that early application of APRV in patients with ARDS would allow pulmonary function to recover faster and would reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation as compared with low tidal volume lung protective ventilation (LTV).MethodsA total of 138 patients with ARDS who received mechanical ventilation for <48 h between May 2015 to October 2016 while in the critical care medicine unit (ICU) of the West China Hospital of Sichuan University were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive APRV (n = 71) or LTV (n = 67). The settings for APRV were: high airway pressure (Phigh) set at the last plateau airway pressure (Pplat), not to exceed 30 cmH2O) and low airway pressure ( Plow) set at 5 cmH2O; the release phase (Tlow) setting adjusted to terminate the peak expiratory flow rate to ≥ 50%; release frequency of 10-14 cycles/min. The settings for LTV were: target tidal volume of 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight; Pplat not exceeding 30 cmH2O; positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) guided by the PEEP-FiO2 table according to the ARDSnet protocol. The primary outcome was the number of days without mechanical ventilation from enrollment to day 28. The secondary endpoints included oxygenation, Pplat, respiratory system compliance, and patient outcomes.ResultsCompared with the LTV group, patients in the APRV group had a higher median number of ventilator-free days {19 [interquartile range (IQR) 8-22] vs. 2 (IQR 0-15); P < 0.001}. This finding was independent of the coexisting differences in chronic disease. The APRV group had a shorter stay in the ICU (P = 0.003). The ICU mortality rate was 19.7% in the APRV group versus 34.3% in the LTV group (P = 0.053) and was associated with better oxygenation and respiratory system compliance, lower Pplat, and less sedation requirement during the first week following enrollment (P < 0.05, repeated-measures analysis of variance).ConclusionsCompared with LTV, early application of APRV in patients with ARDS improved oxygenation and respiratory system compliance, decreased Pplat and reduced the duration of both mechanical ventilation and ICU stay.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Protective mechanical ventilation is recommended for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but it usually requires controlled ventilation and sedation. Using neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) or pressure support ventilation (PSV) could have additional benefits, including the use of lower sedative doses, improved patient-ventilator interaction and shortened duration of mechanical ventilation. We designed a pilot study to assess the feasibility of keeping tidal volume (VT) at protective levels with NAVA and PSV in patients with ARDS. METHODS:We conducted a prospective randomized crossover trial in five ICUs from a university hospital in Brazil and included patients with ARDS transitioning from controlled ventilation to partial ventilatory support. NAVA and PSV were applied in random order, for 15 min each, followed by 3 h in NAVA. Flow, peak airway pressure (Paw) and electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) were captured from the ventilator, and a software (Matlab, Mathworks, USA), automatically detected inspiratory efforts and calculated respiratory rate (RR) and VT. Asynchrony events detection was based on waveform analysis. RESULTS:We randomized 20 patients, but the protocol was interrupted for five (25%) patients for whom we were unable to maintain VT below 6.5 mL/kg in PSV due to strong inspiratory efforts and for one patient for whom we could not detect EAdi signal. For the 14 patients who completed the protocol, VT was 5.8 ± 1.1 mL/kg for NAVA and 5.6 ± 1.0 mL/kg for PSV (p = 0.455) and there were no differences in RR (24 ± 7 for NAVA and 23 ± 7 for PSV, p = 0.661). Paw was greater in NAVA (21 ± 3 cmH2O) than in PSV (19 ± 3 cmH2O, p = 0.001). Most patients were under continuous sedation during the study. NAVA reduced triggering delay compared to PSV (p = 0.020) and the median asynchrony Index was 0.7% (0-2.7) in PSV and 0% (0-2.2) in NAVA (p = 0.6835). CONCLUSIONS:It was feasible to keep VT in protective levels with NAVA and PSV for 75% of the patients. NAVA resulted in similar VT, RR and Paw compared to PSV. Our findings suggest that partial ventilatory assistance with NAVA and PSV is feasible as a protective ventilation strategy in selected ARDS patients under continuous sedation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01519258). Registered 26 January 2012, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01519258.

Project description:BackgroundThe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) occurs in response to a variety of insults, and mechanical ventilation is life-saving in this setting, but ventilator-induced lung injury can also contribute to the morbidity and mortality in the condition. The Beacon Caresystem is a model-based bedside decision support system using mathematical models tuned to the individual patient's physiology to advise on appropriate ventilator settings. Personalised approaches using individual patient description may be particularly advantageous in complex patients, including those who are difficult to mechanically ventilate and wean, in particular ARDS.MethodsWe will conduct a multi-centre international randomised, controlled, allocation concealed, open, pragmatic clinical trial to compare mechanical ventilation in ARDS patients following application of the Beacon Caresystem to that of standard routine care to investigate whether use of the system results in a reduction in driving pressure across all severities and phases of ARDS.DiscussionDespite 20 years of clinical trial data showing significant improvements in ARDS mortality through mitigation of ventilator-induced lung injury, there remains a gap in its personalised application at the bedside. Importantly, the protective effects of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were noted only when there were associated decreases in driving pressure. Hence, the pressures set on the ventilator should be determined by the diseased lungs' pressure-volume relationship which is often unknown or difficult to determine. Knowledge of extent of recruitable lung could improve the ventilator driving pressure. Hence, personalised management demands the application of mechanical ventilation according to the physiological state of the diseased lung at that time. Hence, there is significant rationale for the development of point-of-care clinical decision support systems which help personalise ventilatory strategy according to the current physiology. Furthermore, the potential for the application of the Beacon Caresystem to facilitate local and remote management of large numbers of ventilated patients (as seen during this COVID-19 pandemic) could change the outcome of mechanically ventilated patients during the course of this and future pandemics.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04115709. Registered on 4 October 2019, version 4.0.

Dataset Information

Effects of Different Levels of Variability and Pressure Support Ventilation on Lung Function in Patients With Mild–Moderate Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets