Literature DB >> 28765493

Variability of Tidal Volume in Patient-Triggered Mechanical Ventilation in ARDS.

Sophie Perinel-Ragey1,2, Loredana Baboi1, Claude Guérin3,2,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limiting tidal volume (VT) in patients with ARDS may not be achieved once patient-triggered breaths occur. Furthermore, ICU ventilators offer numerous patient-triggered modes that work differently across brands. We systematically investigated, using a bench model, the effect of patient-triggered modes on the size and variability of VT at different breathing frequencies (f), patient effort, and ARDS severity.
METHODS: We used a V500 Infinity ICU ventilator connected to an ASL 5000 lung model whose compliance was mimicking mild, moderate, and severe ARDS. Thirteen patient-triggered modes were tested, falling into 3 categories, namely volume control ventilation with mandatory minute ventilation; pressure control ventilation, including airway pressure release ventilation (APRV); and pressure support ventilation. Two levels of f and effort were tested for each ARDS severity in each mode. Median (first-third quartiles) VT was compared across modes using non-parametric tests. The probability of VT > 6 mL/kg ideal body weight was assessed by binomial regression and expressed as the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. VT variability was measured from the coefficient of variation.
RESULTS: VT distribution over all f, effort, and ARDS categories significantly differed across modes (P < .001, Kruskal-Wallis test). VT was significantly greater with pressure support (OR 420 mL, 95% CI 332-527 mL) than with any other mode except for variable pressure support level. Risk for VT to be > 6 mL/kg was significantly increased with spontaneous breaths patient-triggered by pressure support (OR 19.36, 95% CI 12.37-30.65) and significantly reduced in APRV (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.72) and pressure support with guaranteed volume mode. The risk increased with increasing effort and decreasing f. Coefficient of variation of VT was greater for low f and volume control-mandatory minute ventilation and pressure control modes. APRV had the greatest within-mode variability.
CONCLUSIONS: Risk of VT > 6 mL/kg was significantly reduced in APRV and pressure support with guaranteed volume mode. APRV had the highest variability. Pressure support with guaranteed volume could be tested in patients with ARDS.
Copyright © 2017 by Daedalus Enterprises.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ARDS; assisted ventilation modes; lung-protective ventilation; pressure-support ventilation; spontaneous breathing; tidal volume; ventilator-induced lung injury

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28765493     DOI: 10.4187/respcare.05415

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Respir Care        ISSN: 0020-1324            Impact factor:   2.258


  3 in total

1.  Influences of assisted breathing and mechanical ventilator settings on tidal volume and alveolar pressures in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a bench study.

Authors:  Renata Santos Vasconcelos; Raquel Pinto Sales; Juliana Arcanjo Lino; Luíza Gabriela de Carvalho Gomes; Nancy Delma Silva Vega Canjura Sousa; Liégina Silveira Marinho; Bruno do Valle Pinheiro; Marcelo Alcantara Holanda
Journal:  Rev Bras Ter Intensiva       Date:  2022-01-24

2.  Use of pressure-regulated volume control in the first 48 hours of hospitalization of mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis or septic shock, with or without ARDS.

Authors:  Yuri Matusov; Jing Li; Dominique Resuello; Hannah Mathers; Jeffrey C Fried
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2019-10-21

3.  Randomized Feasibility Trial of a Low Tidal Volume-Airway Pressure Release Ventilation Protocol Compared With Traditional Airway Pressure Release Ventilation and Volume Control Ventilation Protocols.

Authors:  Eliotte L Hirshberg; Michael J Lanspa; Juhee Peterson; Lori Carpenter; Emily L Wilson; Samuel M Brown; Nathan C Dean; James Orme; Colin K Grissom
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 7.598

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.