Louise Rose1, Martyn Hawkins. 1. Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Room 276, Toronto, ON M5T 1P8, Canada. louise.rose@utoronto.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the definitional criteria for the pressure-limited and time-cycled modes: airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) available in the published literature. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases (1982-2006) were searched using the following terms: APRV, BIPAP, Bilevel and lung protective strategy, individually and in combination. Two independent reviewers determined the paper eligibility and abstracted data from 50 studies and 18 discussion articles. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Of the 50 studies, 39 (78%) described APRV, and 11 (22%) described BIPAP. Various study designs, populations, or outcome measures were investigated. Compared to BIPAP, APRV was described more frequently as extreme inverse inspiratory:expiratory ratio [18/39 (46%) vs. 0/11 (0%), P = 0.004] and used rarely as a noninverse ratio [2/39 (5%) vs. 3/11 (27%), P = 0.06]. One (9%) BIPAP and eight (21%) APRV studies used mild inverse ratio (>1:1 to < or =2:1) (P = 0.7), plus there was increased use of 1:1 ratio [7 (64%) vs. 12 (31%), P = 0.08] with BIPAP. In adult studies, the mean reported set inspiratory pressure (PHigh) was 6 cm H2O greater with APRV when compared to reports of BIPAP (P = 0.3). For both modes, the mean reported positive end expiratory pressure (PLow) was 5.5 cm H2O. Thematic review identified inconsistency of mode descriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Ambiguity exists in the criteria that distinguish APRV and BIPAP. Commercial ventilator branding may further add to confusion. Generic naming of modes and consistent definitional parameters may improve consistency of patient response for a given mode and assist with clinical implementation.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the definitional criteria for the pressure-limited and time-cycled modes: airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) available in the published literature. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases (1982-2006) were searched using the following terms: APRV, BIPAP, Bilevel and lung protective strategy, individually and in combination. Two independent reviewers determined the paper eligibility and abstracted data from 50 studies and 18 discussion articles. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Of the 50 studies, 39 (78%) described APRV, and 11 (22%) described BIPAP. Various study designs, populations, or outcome measures were investigated. Compared to BIPAP, APRV was described more frequently as extreme inverse inspiratory:expiratory ratio [18/39 (46%) vs. 0/11 (0%), P = 0.004] and used rarely as a noninverse ratio [2/39 (5%) vs. 3/11 (27%), P = 0.06]. One (9%) BIPAP and eight (21%) APRV studies used mild inverse ratio (>1:1 to < or =2:1) (P = 0.7), plus there was increased use of 1:1 ratio [7 (64%) vs. 12 (31%), P = 0.08] with BIPAP. In adult studies, the mean reported set inspiratory pressure (PHigh) was 6 cm H2O greater with APRV when compared to reports of BIPAP (P = 0.3). For both modes, the mean reported positive end expiratory pressure (PLow) was 5.5 cm H2O. Thematic review identified inconsistency of mode descriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Ambiguity exists in the criteria that distinguish APRV and BIPAP. Commercial ventilator branding may further add to confusion. Generic naming of modes and consistent definitional parameters may improve consistency of patient response for a given mode and assist with clinical implementation.
Authors: Hermann Wrigge; Jörg Zinserling; Peter Neumann; Thomas Muders; Anders Magnusson; Christian Putensen; Göran Hedenstierna Journal: Crit Care Date: 2005-11-16 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Felipe Saddy; Gisele P Oliveira; Cristiane S N B Garcia; Liliane M Nardelli; Andreia F Rzezinski; Debora S Ornellas; Marcelo M Morales; Vera L Capelozzi; Paolo Pelosi; Patricia R M Rocco Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-03-24 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Marco González; Alejandro C Arroliga; Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Konstantinos Raymondos; Andres Esteban; Christian Putensen; Carlos Apezteguía; Javier Hurtado; Pablo Desmery; Vinko Tomicic; José Elizalde; Fekri Abroug; Yaseen Arabi; Rui Moreno; Antonio Anzueto; Niall D Ferguson Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-03-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: J C M Richard; A Lyazidi; E Akoumianaki; S Mortaza; R L Cordioli; J C Lefebvre; N Rey; L Piquilloud; G F Sferrazza Papa; G F Sferrazza-Papa; A Mercat; L Brochard Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-08-09 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Sarah M McMullen; Maureen Meade; Louise Rose; Karen Burns; Sangeeta Mehta; Robert Doyle; Dietrich Henzler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Goran Hedenstierna; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Philipp Metnitz; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 17.440