PURPOSE: Automated weaning modes are available in some mechanical ventilators, but no studies compared them hitherto. We compared the performance of 3 automated modes under standard and challenging situations. METHODS: We used a lung simulator to compare 3 automated modes, adaptive support ventilation (ASV), mandatory rate ventilation (MRV), and Smartcare, in 6 situations, weaning success, weaning failure, weaning success with extreme anxiety, weaning success with Cheyne-Stokes, weaning success with irregular breathing, and weaning failure with ineffective efforts. RESULTS: The 3 modes correctly recognized the situations of weaning success and failure, even when anxiety or irregular breathing were present but incorrectly recognized weaning success with Cheyne-Stokes. MRV incorrectly recognized weaning failure with ineffective efforts. Time to pressure support (PS) stabilization was shorter for ASV (1-2 minutes for all situations) and MRV (1-7 minutes) than for Smartcare (8-78 minutes). ASV had higher rates of PS oscillations per 5 minutes (4-15), compared with Smartcare (0-1) and MRV (0-12), except when extreme anxiety was present. CONCLUSIONS: Smartcare, ASV, and MRV were equally able to recognize weaning success and failure, despite the presence of anxiety or irregular breathing but performed incorrectly in the presence of Cheyne-Stokes. PS behavior over the time differs among modes, with ASV showing larger and more frequent PS oscillations over the time. Clinical studies are needed to confirm our results.
PURPOSE: Automated weaning modes are available in some mechanical ventilators, but no studies compared them hitherto. We compared the performance of 3 automated modes under standard and challenging situations. METHODS: We used a lung simulator to compare 3 automated modes, adaptive support ventilation (ASV), mandatory rate ventilation (MRV), and Smartcare, in 6 situations, weaning success, weaning failure, weaning success with extreme anxiety, weaning success with Cheyne-Stokes, weaning success with irregular breathing, and weaning failure with ineffective efforts. RESULTS: The 3 modes correctly recognized the situations of weaning success and failure, even when anxiety or irregular breathing were present but incorrectly recognized weaning success with Cheyne-Stokes. MRV incorrectly recognized weaning failure with ineffective efforts. Time to pressure support (PS) stabilization was shorter for ASV (1-2 minutes for all situations) and MRV (1-7 minutes) than for Smartcare (8-78 minutes). ASV had higher rates of PS oscillations per 5 minutes (4-15), compared with Smartcare (0-1) and MRV (0-12), except when extreme anxiety was present. CONCLUSIONS: Smartcare, ASV, and MRV were equally able to recognize weaning success and failure, despite the presence of anxiety or irregular breathing but performed incorrectly in the presence of Cheyne-Stokes. PS behavior over the time differs among modes, with ASV showing larger and more frequent PS oscillations over the time. Clinical studies are needed to confirm our results.
Authors: Amir Vahedian-Azimi; Keivan Gohari-Moghadam; Farshid Rahimi-Bashar; Abbas Samim; Masoum Khoshfetrat; Seyyede Momeneh Mohammadi; Leonardo Cordeiro de Souza; Ata Mahmoodpoor Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-07-22