Nuttapol Rittayamai1, Christina M Katsios2, François Beloncle3, Jan O Friedrich4, Jordi Mancebo5, Laurent Brochard6. 1. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute and Critical Care Department, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Division of Respiratory Diseases and Tuberculosis, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute and Critical Care Department, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Medical Intensive Care Unit, Hospital of Angers, Université d'Angers, Angers, France. 4. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute and Critical Care Department, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Servei de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute and Critical Care Department, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Keenan Research Centre, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: brochardl@smh.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is a cornerstone in the management of acute respiratory failure. Both volume-targeted and pressure-targeted ventilations are used, the latter modes being increasingly used. We provide a narrative review of the physiologic principles of these two types of breath delivery, performed a literature search, and analyzed published comparisons between modes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether pressure control-continuous mandatory ventilation (PC-CMV) or pressure control-inverse ratio ventilation (PC-IRV) has demonstrated advantages over volume control-continuous mandatory ventilation (VC-CMV). The Cochrane tool for risk of bias was used for methodologic quality. We also introduced physiologic criteria as quality indicators for selecting the studies. Outcomes included compliance, gas exchange, hemodynamics, work of breathing, and clinical outcomes. Analyses were completed with RevMan5 using random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria, many being at high risk of bias. Comparisons of PC-CMV/PC-IRV and VC-CMV did not show any difference for compliance or gas exchange, even when looking at PC-IRV. Calculating the oxygenation index suggested a poorer effect for PC-IRV. There was no difference between modes in terms of hemodynamics, work of breathing, or clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The two modes have different working principles but clinical available data do not suggest any difference in the outcomes. We included all identified trials, enhancing generalizability, and attempted to include only sufficient quality physiologic studies. However, included trials were small and varied considerably in quality. These data should help to open the choice of ventilation of patients with acute respiratory failure.
BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is a cornerstone in the management of acute respiratory failure. Both volume-targeted and pressure-targeted ventilations are used, the latter modes being increasingly used. We provide a narrative review of the physiologic principles of these two types of breath delivery, performed a literature search, and analyzed published comparisons between modes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether pressure control-continuous mandatory ventilation (PC-CMV) or pressure control-inverse ratio ventilation (PC-IRV) has demonstrated advantages over volume control-continuous mandatory ventilation (VC-CMV). The Cochrane tool for risk of bias was used for methodologic quality. We also introduced physiologic criteria as quality indicators for selecting the studies. Outcomes included compliance, gas exchange, hemodynamics, work of breathing, and clinical outcomes. Analyses were completed with RevMan5 using random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria, many being at high risk of bias. Comparisons of PC-CMV/PC-IRV and VC-CMV did not show any difference for compliance or gas exchange, even when looking at PC-IRV. Calculating the oxygenation index suggested a poorer effect for PC-IRV. There was no difference between modes in terms of hemodynamics, work of breathing, or clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The two modes have different working principles but clinical available data do not suggest any difference in the outcomes. We included all identified trials, enhancing generalizability, and attempted to include only sufficient quality physiologic studies. However, included trials were small and varied considerably in quality. These data should help to open the choice of ventilation of patients with acute respiratory failure.
Authors: Wei-Ren Ke; Rachel Yoon Kyung Chang; Philip Chi Lip Kwok; Patricia Tang; Lan Chen; Donghao Chen; Hak-Kim Chan Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-04
Authors: Luciano Gattinoni; John J Marini; Antonio Pesenti; Michael Quintel; Jordi Mancebo; Laurent Brochard Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jeremy R Beitler; Scott A Sands; Stephen H Loring; Robert L Owens; Atul Malhotra; Roger G Spragg; Michael A Matthay; B Taylor Thompson; Daniel Talmor Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: A Bagchi; M I Rudolph; P Y Ng; F P Timm; D R Long; S Shaefi; K Ladha; M F Vidal Melo; M Eikermann Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 6.955
Authors: Thomas Bein; Salvatore Grasso; Onnen Moerer; Michael Quintel; Claude Guerin; Maria Deja; Anita Brondani; Sangeeta Mehta Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 17.440