Robinder G Khemani1,2, Justin Hotz3, Rica Morzov3, Rutger C Flink4, Asvari Kamerkar3, Marie LaFortune3, Gerrard F Rafferty5, Patrick A Ross3,6, Christopher J L Newth3,6. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, 4650 Sunset Blvd Mailstop 12, Los Angeles, CA, 90027, USA. rkhemani@chla.usc.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, USA. rkhemani@chla.usc.edu. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, 4650 Sunset Blvd Mailstop 12, Los Angeles, CA, 90027, USA. 4. Med-E Link, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Respiratory Medicine, King's College London, London, UK. 6. Department of Pediatrics, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pressure support is often used for extubation readiness testing, to overcome perceived imposed work of breathing from endotracheal tubes. We sought to determine whether effort of breathing on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) of 5 cmH2O is higher than post-extubation effort, and if this is confounded by endotracheal tube size or post-extubation noninvasive respiratory support. METHODS: Prospective trial in intubated children. Using esophageal manometry we compared effort of breathing with pressure rate product under four conditions: pressure support 10/5 cmH2O, CPAP 5 cmH2O (CPAP), and spontaneous breathing 5 and 60 min post-extubation. Subgroup analysis excluded post-extubation upper airway obstruction (UAO) and stratified by endotracheal tube size and post-extubation noninvasive respiratory support. RESULTS: We included 409 children. Pressure rate product on pressure support [100 (IQR 60, 175)] was lower than CPAP [200 (120, 300)], which was lower than 5 min [300 (150, 500)] and 60 min [255 (175, 400)] post-extubation (all p < 0.01). Excluding 107 patients with post-extubation UAO (where pressure rate product after extubation is expected to be higher), pressure support still underestimated post-extubation effort by 126-147 %, and CPAP underestimated post-extubation effort by 17-25 %. For all endotracheal tube subgroups, ≤3.5 mmID (n = 152), 4-4.5 mmID (n = 102), and ≥5.0 mmID (n = 48), pressure rate product on pressure support was lower than CPAP and post-extubation (all p < 0.0001), while CPAP pressure rate product was not different from post-extubation (all p < 0.05). These findings were similar for patients extubated to noninvasive respiratory support, where pressure rate product on pressure support before extubation was significantly lower than pressure rate product post-extubation on noninvasive respiratory support (p < 0.0001, n = 81). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of endotracheal tube size, pressure support during extubation readiness tests significantly underestimates post-extubation effort of breathing.
PURPOSE: Pressure support is often used for extubation readiness testing, to overcome perceived imposed work of breathing from endotracheal tubes. We sought to determine whether effort of breathing on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) of 5 cmH2O is higher than post-extubation effort, and if this is confounded by endotracheal tube size or post-extubation noninvasive respiratory support. METHODS: Prospective trial in intubated children. Using esophageal manometry we compared effort of breathing with pressure rate product under four conditions: pressure support 10/5 cmH2O, CPAP 5 cmH2O (CPAP), and spontaneous breathing 5 and 60 min post-extubation. Subgroup analysis excluded post-extubation upper airway obstruction (UAO) and stratified by endotracheal tube size and post-extubation noninvasive respiratory support. RESULTS: We included 409 children. Pressure rate product on pressure support [100 (IQR 60, 175)] was lower than CPAP [200 (120, 300)], which was lower than 5 min [300 (150, 500)] and 60 min [255 (175, 400)] post-extubation (all p < 0.01). Excluding 107 patients with post-extubation UAO (where pressure rate product after extubation is expected to be higher), pressure support still underestimated post-extubation effort by 126-147 %, and CPAP underestimated post-extubation effort by 17-25 %. For all endotracheal tube subgroups, ≤3.5 mmID (n = 152), 4-4.5 mmID (n = 102), and ≥5.0 mmID (n = 48), pressure rate product on pressure support was lower than CPAP and post-extubation (all p < 0.0001), while CPAP pressure rate product was not different from post-extubation (all p < 0.05). These findings were similar for patients extubated to noninvasive respiratory support, where pressure rate product on pressure support before extubation was significantly lower than pressure rate product post-extubation on noninvasive respiratory support (p < 0.0001, n = 81). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of endotracheal tube size, pressure support during extubation readiness tests significantly underestimates post-extubation effort of breathing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Airway extubation; Pediatrics; Ventilator weaning; Work of breathing
Authors: Ewan C Goligher; Eddy Fan; Margaret S Herridge; Alistair Murray; Stefannie Vorona; Debbie Brace; Nuttapol Rittayamai; Ashley Lanys; George Tomlinson; Jeffrey M Singh; Steffen-Sebastian Bolz; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Brian P Kavanagh; Laurent J Brochard; Niall D Ferguson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-11-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Philippe A Jouvet; Valérie Payen; France Gauvin; Guillaume Emeriaud; Jacques Lacroix Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Christopher J L Newth; Shekhar Venkataraman; Douglas F Willson; Kathleen L Meert; Rick Harrison; J Michael Dean; Murray Pollack; Jerry Zimmerman; Kanwaljeet J S Anand; Joseph A Carcillo; Carol E Nicholson Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Edward Vincent Faustino; Rainer G Gedeit; Adam Schwarz; Lisa A Asaro; David Wypij; Martha A Q Curley Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Mark J Peters; Andrew Argent; Marino Festa; Stéphane Leteurtre; Jefferson Piva; Ann Thompson; Douglas Willson; Pierre Tissières; Marisa Tucci; Jacques Lacroix Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Asavari Kamerkar; Justin Hotz; Rica Morzov; Christopher J L Newth; Patrick A Ross; Robinder G Khemani Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Robinder G Khemani; Tro Sekayan; Justin Hotz; Rutger C Flink; Gerrard F Rafferty; Narayan Iyer; Christopher J L Newth Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 7.598