| Literature DB >> 26662814 |
Wenfei Wang1, Anup Das2, Oanna Cole3, Marc Chikhani4, Jonathan G Hardman5, Declan G Bates6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent prospective trial using porcine models of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) indicated that positive-pressure ventilation delivered by a conventional intensive care ventilator at a moderately high frequency allows safe reduction of tidal volume below 6 ml/kg, leading to more protective ventilation. We aimed to explore whether these results would be replicated when implementing similar ventilation strategies in a high-fidelity computational simulator, tuned to match data on the responses of a number of human ARDS patients to different ventilator inputs.Entities:
Keywords: Acute respiratory distress syndrome; Computational simulation; Positive-pressure ventilation; Ventilator-induced lung injury
Year: 2015 PMID: 26662814 PMCID: PMC4675773 DOI: 10.1186/s40635-015-0068-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Intensive Care Med Exp ISSN: 2197-425X
Nominal values and allowable ranges for the model parameters
| Parameters | Nominal value | Variation ranges |
|---|---|---|
| TOP | 30 | (5, 60) |
| Stiffness coefficient | 0.05 | (0.005, 0.5) |
| Extrinsic pressure | 28.8 | (−20, 28.8) |
Model fitting for three ARDS patients
| Patient A | Patient B | Patient C | ||||
| CO (l/min) | 13.0 | 10.1 | 3.9 | |||
| FIO2 | 0.8 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Hb (g/l) | 112 | 79 | 98 | |||
| PVR (dyn s cm−5) | 152.0 | 152.1 | 151.9 | |||
|
| 37 | 31 | 33 | |||
| DC (ratio) | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | |||
| RR (b/min) | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | |||
| Data | Model | Data | Model | Data | Model | |
| PaO2 (mmHg) | 201 | 203.1 | 165.75 | 166.29 | 56.32 | 55.59 |
| PvO2 (mmHg) | 45.83 | 47.68 | 42 | 41.51 | 24.83 | 25.66 |
| PvCO2 (mmHg) | 46.73 | 43.34 | 43.5 | 43.61 | 39.3 | 39.79 |
| Shunt (% of CO) | 30.0 | 30.8 | 33.5 | 34.7 | 34.7 | 35.21 |
Ventilation settings for strategies 1 and 2
| RR (b/min) | 16 | 24 | 32 | 40 | 48 |
|
| 497.5 | 385 | 328.75 | 295 | 272.5 |
|
| 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 |
|
| 5400 | 5400 | 5400 | 5400 | 5400 |
| DC (ratio) (strategy 1) | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 |
| DC (ratio) (strategy 2) | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.52 | 0.58 | 0.65 |
|
| 404.04 | 466.67 | 531.31 | 595.96 | 660.61 |
|
| 337 | 337 | 337 | 337 | 337 |
Fig. 1Mechanical ventilator settings for each ventilation strategy. a V T for strategies 1 and 2. b V T for strategy 3. c RR for all strategies. d DC for each strategy
Fig. 2Model outputs for patient A under different ventilation strategies
Fig. 3Model outputs for patient B under different ventilation strategies
Fig. 4Model outputs for patient C under different ventilation strategies
Fig. 5Dynamic alveolar strain (V T/FRC) for each patient as RR increased under the different ventilation strategies
Fig. 6Relationship between V Dphys and V T for each patient using strategy 3
Fig. 7Model outputs for patient C using strategy 1 with calculated V Dphys