Dataset Information

Positive end-expiratory pressure: how to set it at the individual level.

ABSTRACT: The positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), since its introduction in the treatment of acute respiratory failure, up to the 1980s was uniquely aimed to provide a viable oxygenation. Since the first application, a large debate about the criteria for selecting the PEEP levels arose within the scientific community. Lung mechanics, oxygen transport, venous admixture thresholds were all proposed, leading to PEEP recommendations from 5 up to 25 cmH2O. Throughout this period, the main concern was the hemodynamics. This paradigm changed during the 1980s after the wide acceptance of atelectrauma as one of the leading causes of ventilator induced lung injury. Accordingly, the PEEP aim shifted from oxygenation to lung protection. In this framework, the prevention of lung opening and closing became an almost unquestioned dogma. Consequently, as PEEP keeps open the pulmonary units opened during the previous inspiratory phase, new methods were designed to identify the 'optimal' PEEP during the expiratory phase. The open lung approach requires that every collapsed unit potentially openable is opened and maintained open. The methods to assess the recruitment are based on imaging (computed tomography, electric impedance tomography, ultrasound) or mechanically-driven gas exchange modifications. All the latest assume that whatever change in respiratory system compliance is due to changes in lung compliance, which in turn is uniquely function of the recruitment. Comparative studies, however, showed that the only possible approach to measure the amount of collapsed tissue regaining inflation is the CT scan. In fact, all the other methods estimate as recruitment the gas entry in pulmonary units already open at lower PEEP, but increasing their compliance at higher PEEP. Since higher PEEP is usually more indicated (also for oxygenation) when the recruitability is higher, as occurs with increasing severity, a meaningful PEEP selection requires the assessment of recruitment. The Berlin definition may help in this assessment.

SUBMITTER: Gattinoni L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5537121 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPositive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been demonstrated to decrease ventilator-induced lung injury in patients under mechanical ventilation (MV) for acute respiratory failure. Recently, some studies have proposed some beneficial effects of PEEP in ventilated patients without lung injury. The influence of PEEP on respiratory mechanics in children is not well known. Our aim was to determine the effects on respiratory mechanics of setting PEEP at 5 cmH2O in anesthetized healthy children.MethodsPatients younger than 15 years old without history of lung injury scheduled for elective surgery gave informed consent and were enrolled in the study. After usual care for general anesthesia, patients were placed on volume controlled MV. Two sets of respiratory mechanics studies were performed using inspiratory and expiratory breath hold, with PEEP 0 and 5 cmH2O. The maximum inspiratory and expiratory flow (QI and QE) as well as peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), plateau pressure (PPL) and total PEEP (tPEEP) were measured. Respiratory system compliance (CRS), inspiratory and expiratory resistances (RawI and RawE) and time constants (KTI and KTE) were calculated. Data were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR). Wilcoxon sign test and Spearman's analysis were used. Significance was set at P < 0.05.ResultsWe included 30 patients, median age 39 (15-61.3) months old, 60% male. When PEEP increased, PIP increased from 12 (11,14) to 15.5 (14,18), and CRS increased from 0.9 (0.9,1.2) to 1.2 (0.9,1.4) mL·kg- 1·cmH2O- 1; additionally, when PEEP increased, driving pressure decreased from 6.8 (5.9,8.1) to 5.8 (4.7,7.1) cmH2O, and QE decreased from 13.8 (11.8,18.7) to 11.7 (9.1,13.5) L·min- 1 (all P < 0.01). There were no significant changes in resistance and QI.ConclusionsAnalysis of respiratory mechanics in anesthetized healthy children shows that PEEP at 5 cmH2O places the respiratory system in a better position in the P/V curve. A better understanding of lung mechanics may lead to changes in the traditional ventilatory approach, limiting injury associated with MV.

Project description:Weaning patients from mechanical ventilation (MV) is a critical and resource intensive process in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) that impacts patient outcomes and healthcare expenses. Weaning methods vary widely among providers. Prolonged MV is associated with adverse events and higher healthcare expenses. Predicting weaning readiness is a non-trivial process in which the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), a crucial component of MV, has potential to be indicative but has not yet been used as the target. We aimed to predict successful weaning from mechanical ventilation by targeting changes in the PEEP-level using a supervised machine learning model. This retrospective study included 12,153 mechanically ventilated patients from Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-IV) and eICU collaborative research database (eICU-CRD). Two machine learning models (Extreme Gradient Boosting and Logistic Regression) were developed using a continuous PEEP reduction as target. The data is splitted into 80% as training set and 20% as test set. The model's predictive performance was reported using 95% confidence interval (CI), based on evaluation metrics such as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), F1-Score, Recall, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The model's descriptive performance was reported as the variable ranking using SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) algorithm. The best model achieved an AUROC of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83-0.85) and an AUPRC of 0.69 (95% CI 0.67-0.70) in predicting successful weaning based on the PEEP reduction. The model demonstrated a Recall of 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.86), F1-score of 0.86 (95% CI 0.85-0.87), PPV of 0.87 (95% CI 0.86-0.88), and NPV of 0.64 (95% CI 0.63-0.66). Most of the variables that SHAP algorithm ranked to be important correspond with clinical intuition, such as duration of MV, oxygen saturation (SaO2), PEEP, and Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) components. This study demonstrates the potential application of machine learning in predicting successful weaning from MV based on continuous PEEP reduction. The model's high PPV and moderate NPV suggest that it could be a useful tool to assist clinicians in making decisions regarding ventilator management.

Project description:BackgroundIn ARDS patients, changes in respiratory mechanical properties and ventilatory settings can cause incomplete lung deflation at end-expiration. Both can promote dynamic hyperinflation and intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The aim of this study was to investigate, in a large population of ARDS patients, the presence of intrinsic PEEP, possible associated factors (patients' characteristics and ventilator settings), and the effects of two different external PEEP levels on the intrinsic PEEP.MethodsWe made a secondary analysis of published data. Patients were ventilated with a tidal volume of 6-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight, sedated, and paralyzed. After a recruitment maneuver, a PEEP trial was run at 5 and 15 cmH2O, and partitioned mechanics measurements were collected after 20 min of stabilization. Lung computed tomography scans were taken at 5 and 45 cmH2O. Patients were classified into two groups according to whether or not they had intrinsic PEEP at the end of an expiratory pause.ResultsWe enrolled 217 sedated, paralyzed patients: 87 (40%) had intrinsic PEEP with a median of 1.1 [1.0-2.3] cmH2O at 5 cmH2O of PEEP. The intrinsic PEEP significantly decreased with higher PEEP (1.1 [1.0-2.3] vs 0.6 [0.0-1.0] cmH2O; p < 0.001). The applied tidal volume was significantly lower (480 [430-540] vs 520 [445-600] mL at 5 cmH2O of PEEP; 480 [430-540] vs 510 [430-590] mL at 15 cmH2O) in patients with intrinsic PEEP, while the respiratory rate was significantly higher (18 [15-20] vs 15 [13-19] bpm at 5 cmH2O of PEEP; 18 [15-20] vs 15 [13-19] bpm at 15 cmH2O). At both PEEP levels, the total airway resistance and compliance of the respiratory system were not different in patients with and without intrinsic PEEP. The total lung gas volume and lung recruitability were also not different between patients with and without intrinsic PEEP (respectively 961 [701-1535] vs 973 [659-1433] mL and 15 [0-32] % vs 22 [0-36] %).ConclusionsIn sedated, paralyzed ARDS patients without a known obstructive disease, the amount of intrinsic PEEP during lung-protective ventilation is negligible and does not influence respiratory mechanical properties.

Dataset Information

Positive end-expiratory pressure: how to set it at the individual level.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets