Dataset Information

Validation of at-the-bedside formulae for estimating ventilator driving pressure during airway pressure release ventilation using computer simulation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is widely available on mechanical ventilators and has been proposed as an early intervention to prevent lung injury or as a rescue therapy in the management of refractory hypoxemia. Driving pressure ([Formula: see text]) has been identified in numerous studies as a key indicator of ventilator-induced-lung-injury that needs to be carefully controlled. [Formula: see text] delivered by the ventilator in APRV is not directly measurable in dynamic conditions, and there is no "gold standard" method for its estimation.

Methods

We used a computational simulator matched to data from 90 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to evaluate the accuracy of three "at-the-bedside" methods for estimating ventilator [Formula: see text] during APRV.

Results

Levels of [Formula: see text] delivered by the ventilator in APRV were generally within safe limits, but in some cases exceeded levels specified by protective ventilation strategies. A formula based on estimating the intrinsic positive end expiratory pressure present at the end of the APRV release provided the most accurate estimates of [Formula: see text]. A second formula based on assuming that expiratory flow, volume and pressure decay mono-exponentially, and a third method that requires temporarily switching to volume-controlled ventilation, also provided accurate estimates of true [Formula: see text].

Conclusions

Levels of [Formula: see text] delivered by the ventilator during APRV can potentially exceed levels specified by standard protective ventilation strategies, highlighting the need for careful monitoring. Our results show that [Formula: see text] delivered by the ventilator during APRV can be accurately estimated at the bedside using simple formulae that are based on readily available measurements.

SUBMITTER: Mistry S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9039982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring passive mechanical ventilation, the driving pressure of the respiratory system is an important mediator of ventilator-induced lung injury. Monitoring of driving pressure during assisted ventilation, similar to controlled ventilation, could be a tool to identify patients at risk of ventilator-induced lung injury. The aim of this study was to describe driving pressure over time and to identify whether and when high driving pressure occurs in critically ill patients during assisted ventilation.MethodsSixty-two patients fulfilling criteria for assisted ventilation were prospectively studied. Patients were included when the treating physician selected proportional assist ventilation (PAV+), a mode that estimates respiratory system compliance. In these patients, continuous recordings of all ventilator parameters were obtained for up to 72 h. Driving pressure was calculated as tidal volume-to-respiratory system compliance ratio. The distribution of driving pressure and tidal volume values over time was examined, and periods of sustained high driving pressure (≥ 15 cmH2O) and of stable compliance were identified and analyzed.ResultsThe analysis included 3200 h of ventilation, consisting of 8.8 million samples. For most (95%) of the time, driving pressure was < 15 cmH2O and tidal volume < 11 mL/kg (of ideal body weight). In most patients, high driving pressure was observed for short periods of time (median 2.5 min). Prolonged periods of high driving pressure were observed in five patients (8%). During the 661 periods of stable compliance, high driving pressure combined with a tidal volume ≥ 8 mL/kg was observed only in 11 cases (1.6%) pertaining to four patients. High driving pressure occurred almost exclusively when respiratory system compliance was low, and compliance above 30 mL/cmH2O excluded the presence of high driving pressure with 90% sensitivity and specificity.ConclusionsIn critically ill patients fulfilling criteria for assisted ventilation, and ventilated in PAV+ mode, sustained high driving pressure occurred in a small, yet not negligible number of patients. The presence of sustained high driving pressure was not associated with high tidal volume, but occurred almost exclusively when compliance was below 30 mL/cmH2O.

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:BackgroundThe effects of different modes of mechanical ventilation in the same ventilatory support level on ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction onset were assessed in healthy rabbits.MethodsTwenty New Zealand rabbits were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n = 5 in each group). Group 1: no mechanical ventilation; group 2: controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) for 24 hours; group 3: assist/control ventilation (A/C) mode for 24 hours; group 4: high-level pressure support ventilation (PSV) mode for 24 hours. Heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, PH, partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen and partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide were monitored and diaphragm electrical activity was analyzed in the 4 groups. Caspase-3 was evaluated by protein analysis and diaphragm ultra structure was assessed by electron microscopy.ResultsThe centroid frequency and the ratio of high frequency to low frequency were significantly reduced in the CMV, A/C and PSV groups (P < 0.001). The percent change in centroid frequency was significantly lower in the PSV group than in the CMV and A/C groups (P = 0.001 and P = 0.028, respectively). Electromyography of diaphragm integral amplitude decreased by 90% ± 1.48%, 67.8% ± 3.13% and 70.2% ± 4.72% in the CMV, A/C and PSV groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Caspase-3 protein activation was attenuated in the PSV group compared with the CMV and A/C groups (P = 0.035 and P = 0.033, respectively). Irregular swelling of mitochondria along with fractured and fuzzy cristae was observed in the CMV group, whereas mitochondrial cristae were dense and rich in the PSV group. The mitochondrial injury scores (Flameng scores) in the PSV group were the lowest among the 3 ventilatory groups (0.93 ± 0.09 in PSV versus 2.69 ± 0.05 in the CMV [P < 0.01] and PSV versus A/C groups [2.02 ± 0.08, P < 0.01]).ConclusionsThe diaphragm myoelectric activity was reduced in the PSV group, although excessive oxidative stress and ultra-structural changes of diaphragm were found. However, partial diaphragm electrical activity was retained and diaphragm injury was minimized using the PSV mode.

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.