| Literature DB >> 30202530 |
Spyros D Mentzelopoulos1, Hector Anninos1, Sotirios Malachias1, Spyros G Zakynthinos1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent, large trials of high-frequency oscillation (HFO) versus conventional ventilation (CV) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) reported negative results. This could be explained by an HFO-induced right ventricular (RV) dysfunction/failure due to high intrathoracic pressures and hypercapnia. We hypothesized that HFO strategies aimed at averting/attenuating hypercapnia, such as "low-frequency" (i.e., 4 Hz) HFO and 4-Hz HFO with tracheal-gas insufflation (HFO-TGI), may result in an improved RV function relative to "high-frequency" (i.e., 7 Hz) HFO (which may promote hypercapnia) and similar RV function relative to lung protective CV.Entities:
Keywords: Adult; Echocardiography; Heart ventricles; High-frequency ventilation; Hypercapnia; Respiratory distress syndrome; Transesophageal
Year: 2018 PMID: 30202530 PMCID: PMC6122746 DOI: 10.1186/s40560-018-0327-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Intensive Care ISSN: 2052-0492
Fig. 1Schematic representation of the study protocol. CV1 first period of lung protective conventional ventilation, PEEP positive end-expiratory pressure, TEE transesophageal echocardiography, SM safety measurement, RVEDA right ventricular end-diastolic area, LVEDA left ventricular end-diastolic area, FiO2 inspiratory oxygen fraction, RM recruitment maneuver, mPaw mean airway pressure, SpO2 peripheral oxygen saturation, HFO high-frequency oscillation, TGI tracheal gas insufflation, CV2 second (study protocol concluding) period of lung-protective conventional ventilation. *Continuous positive airway pressure of 45 cmH2O for 40 s; the HFO breathing circuit was pressurized with the oscillator piston off. †During the first study TEE SM (measurement duration, < 5 min), an RVEDA/LVDEA ratio of > 0.8 triggered a PEEP decrease by 2–3 cmH2O. ‡Performed within 15–20 min after a protocol-mandated decrease in PEEP (see above); this (second) TEE SM was not performed whenever RVEDA/LVEDA did not exceed 0.8 at the first TEE SM. §Includes saved midesophageal four-chamber views and, transgastric, two-chamber, short-axis views, and hemodynamic and gas exchange data during all ventilator strategy testing periods; quasistatic respiratory compliance data were also obtained during CV1 and CV2; each time, the study protocol measurements were to be completed within 10 min. ║During HFO-TGI, the mPaw was set at 2–3 cmH2O lower than the “study HFO mPaw” to counterbalance an estimated, TGI-associated increase of similar magnitude in HFO tracheal pressure; see also text, reference [15] and Additional file 1
Fig. 2Examples of transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) determination of two primary study outcome variables. Upper panel: determination of the right-to-left ventricular end-diastolic area ratio (RVEDA/LVEDA). Lower panel: determination of the end-diastolic eccentricity index (EDECCIx). The left vertical pair of images was obtained from study participant no. 12 during conventional ventilation (CV), the middle pair of images was obtained from participant no. 7 during 7-Hz high-frequency oscillation (HFO), and the right pair of images was obtained from participant no. 13 during 4-Hz HFO. In the lower panel (short-axis, transgastric views), “2” corresponds to the diameter of the left ventricle (LV) that was perpendicular to and bisecting the interventricular septum, whereas “1” corresponds to the diameter that was perpendicular to “2.” TEE measurements were repeated and averaged over 2–4 consecutive cardiac cycles (see also Additional file 1); EDECCIx was calculated as diameter “1”/diameter “2.” Description of figure modifications performed with Photoshop CC (Adobe Systems): upper panel, enhancement of the periphery of the right ventricle (RV) and LV using the “pen” tool and the “stroke path” command and enhancement of contrast of the middle image using the “adjust levels” command; lower panel, enhancement of diameter “1”/diameter “2” using the “line” tool. The original versions of the stored pairs of images are also provided in Additional file 1: Figure S1
Tested strategies of high-frequency oscillation (HFO)
| HFO strategy | 4-Hz HFO | 4-Hz HFO-TGI | 7-Hz HFO |
|---|---|---|---|
| mPaw (cmH2O)a | + 10 cmH2Ob | + 7–8 cmH2Ob | + 10 cmH2Ob |
| FiO2 | FiO2 of preceding CVc | FiO2 of preceding CVc | FiO2 of preceding CVc |
| ΔP (cmH2O)d | 80–90 | 80–90 | 80–90 |
| Bias flow (L/min) | 60 | 60 | 60 |
| I/E ratio | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1/2 |
| Cuff leak (cmH2O) | 3–5 | 3–5 | NA |
| TGI (L/min)e | NA | 50% of MV of preceding CV | NA |
| Estimated Vt (mL)f | 181.2 ± 6.5 | 190.0 ± 6.5 | 118.5 ± 4.1 |
| RMg | CPAP of 45 cmH2O for 40 s | ||
mPaw mean airway pressure, TGI tracheal gas insufflation, FiO inspired oxygen fraction, CV conventional ventilation, ΔP oscillatory pressure amplitude, I/E ratio inspiratory-to-expiratory time ratio, TGI tracheal gas insufflation, MV minute ventilation, Vt tidal volume, RM recruitment maneuver, CPAP continuous positive airway pressure, NA not applicable
1 cmH2O = 0.098 kPa
aValues correspond to the initial setting of the HFO mPaw and are referred to the mPaw of the pre-HFO CV (see also text and Fig. 1)
bDuring HFO-TGI, the mPaw was set at 2–3 cmH2O lower than the mPaw of standard HFO to counterbalance the estimated, TGI-induced increase in tracheal pressure [15]; the maximum allowable upper limit of HFO mPaw was 40 cmH2O
cProvided that peripheral oxygen saturation could be maintained above 90%
dCorresponds to actual ventilator-displayed values after the setting of the “Power” within 80–90% of its maximal value
eTGI FiO2 was equal to the FiO2 of the preceding CV; see also Supplement to Methods in Additional file 1
fValues are mean ± SD; estimates were based on previously published data on Vt delivery during HFO [1], and a previously published Vt estimate of ~ 200 mL for a specific combination of HFO frequency (i.e., 3.5 Hz), ΔP (i.e., 90 cmH2O), bias flow (i.e., 40 L/min), tracheal tube internal diameter (i.e., 8.5 mm), mPaw level (i.e., 30 cmH2O), and respiratory compliance (i.e., ~ 31 cmH2O) [15]; further details (including a calculated possible bias and other limitations of these estimates) are reported in Additional file 1
gEach HFO strategy was to be preceded by an RM, provided that RM abort criteria were not met; see also text, Fig. 1, and Additional file 1
Fig. 3Individual patient data on two primary study outcomes and major determinants of right ventricular function. a Primary outcome no. 1, the right-to-left ventricular end-diastolic area ratio (RVEDA/LVEDA). b Primary outcome no. 2, the end-diastolic eccentricity index. c Determinant of right ventricular function no. 1, the arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2). d Determinant of right ventricular function no. 2, the mean airway pressure. CV1 first period of conventional ventilation, HFO high-frequency oscillation, TGI tracheal gas insufflation, CV2 second period of conventional ventilation (see also “Methods” and Fig. 1). Numbers (from 1 to 17) just above the colored lines that connect the data points (triangles) indicate patient no.; the color of each “data-point-connecting line” is unique for each one of the patients. Horizontal black bars correspond to mean values. For each ventilatory strategy, summary data are also reported as mean ± SD. “Effect of Strategy” corresponds to the level of significance of the effect of the fixed, within-subjects factor (i.e., ventilatory strategy) in linear mixed-model analysis (see also the “Statistical Analysis” subsection); additional mixed-model data: a Percent variation explained 87, calculated as 100 × R2 value of bivariate linear regression between observed and mixed model-predicted values; b percent variation explained, 72; c percent variation explained, 74. *p < 0.05 versus CV1. †p < 0.05 versus 4-Hz HFO. ‡p < 0.05 versus 4-Hz HFO-TGI. §p < 0.05 versus 7-Hz HFO. Actual p values of pairwise comparisons are reported in Additional file 2
Baseline patient data
| Age (years) | 60.6 ± 15.2 |
|---|---|
| Sex (male/female), | 13/4 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 24.5 ± 1.9 |
| Predicted body weight (kg) | 69.8 ± 7.2 |
| Simplified Acute Physiology Score IIa | 42.9 ± 11.2 |
| Murray scorea | 3.4 ± 0.3 |
| Tracheal tube ID (for male/female patient) (mm)a | 8.5/8.0 |
| Ventilator mode | Volume assist-control |
| Inspiratory-to-expiratory time ratioa | 1/2 |
| FiO2 (%)a | 61.2 ± 9.4 |
| PEEPe (cmH2O)a | 14.7 ± 1.9 |
| Tidal volume (L)/(mL/kg predicted body weight)a | 0.44 ± 0.46/6.3 ± 0.4 |
| Square-wave inspiratory flow (L/s)a | 0.67 ± 0.07 |
| Peak airway pressure (cmH2O)a | 43.0 ± 6.2 |
| Plateau airway pressure (cmH2O)a | 30.4 ± 4.4 |
| Mean airway pressure (cmH2O)a | 21.6 ± 2.7 |
| PEEPi (cmH2O)a | 1.0 ± 0.6 |
| Driving pressure (cmH2O)b | 14.7 ± 4.0 |
| C,rs (mL/cmH2O)b | 32.4 ± 10.1 |
| Rtot,rs (cmH2O/L.s)b | 18.5 ± 4.8 |
| ΔEELV (mL)b | 31.0 ± 19.8 |
| SpO2 (%) | 91.2 ± 1.9 |
| PaO2/FiO2 | 108.4 ± 15.0 |
| PaCO2 (kPa) | 6.5 ± 1.5 |
| Arterial pH | 7.35 ± 0.10 |
| Oxygenation index | 20.5 ± 5.0 |
| Time from ARDS diagnosis to study enrollment (h) | 42.0 ± 11.2 |
| ARDS etiology | |
| Hospital-acquired pneumonia, | 11 (64.7) |
| Community-acquired pneumonia, | 2 (11.8) |
| Intra-abdominal sepsis, | 2 (11.8) |
| Other, | 2 (11.8) |
Values are mean ± SD unless otherwise specified. For males, predicted body weight was calculated as 50 + [height (cm) − 152.4] × 0.91; for females as 45.5 + [height (cm) − 152.4] × 0.91
ID internal diameter, FiO inspired oxygen fraction, PEEPe external positive end-expiratory pressure, PEEPi intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure, C,rs respiratory system compliance, Rtot,rs respiratory system resistance ΔEELV chang e in end-expiratory lung volume due to PEEPi, PaO arterial oxygen tension, SpO peripheral oxygen saturation, PaCO arterial carbon dioxide tension, ARDS acute respiratory distress syndrome, MOF multiple organ failure
aVariables determined/recorded within 1 h before study enrolment
bVariables calculated according to standard formulas presented in Additional file 1
cIncludes one case of bilateral pulmonary contusions and one case of massive blood transfusion
Results of physiological measurements (see also Fig. 3)
| Variable | CV1 | 4 Hz HFO | 4 Hz HFO-TGI | 7 Hz HFO | CV2 | Strategy Effect– | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ES-eccentricity index |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RVEDA (cm2) | 14.9 ± 5.7 | 13.0 ± 4.3 | 12.4 ± 3.8 | 14.8 ± 5.3c | 13.6 ± 4.7 | 0.003 | 0.92/(92%) |
| LVEDA (cm2) | 24.8 ± 7.7 | 23.4 ± 6.7 | 24.0 ± 6.6 | 23.1 ± 7.5 | 23.1 ± 6.6 | 0.22 | 0.91 (91%) |
| FAC of the RV | 0.41 ± 0.08 | 0.41 ± 0.07 | 0.44 ± 0.07b | 0.35 ± 0.09a,b,c | 0.40 ± 0.09c | < 0.001 | 0.78/(78%) |
| TAPSE (cm) | 1.97 ± 0.55 | 1.88 ± 0.47 | 2.04 ± 0.55b | 1.66 ± 0.48a,b,c | 1.96 ± 0.58d | < 0.001 | 0.90/(90%) |
| PaO2/FiO2 | 139.1 ± 20.5 | 249.6 ± 53.6a | 246.4 ± 77.6a | 248.1 ± 78.0a | 155.0 ± 48.2b,c,d | < 0.001 | 0.53/(53%) |
| ScvO2 (%) | 68.4 ± 4.7 | 74.4 ± 5.1a | 74.3 ± 5.1a | 74.2 ± 5.8a | 70.6 ± 4.2b,c,d | < 0.001 | 0.74 (74%) |
| Arterial pH | 7.39 ± 0.09 | 7.42 ± 0.14 | 7.43 ± 0.14 | 7.29 ± 0.12a,b,c | 7.36 ± 0.09d | < 0.001 | 0.75/(75%) |
| Shunt fraction | 0.34 ± 0.07 | 0.21 ± 0.07a | 0.23 ± 0.08a | 0.23 ± 0.10a | 0.35 ± 0.10b,c,d | < 0.001 | 0.66/(66%) |
| Oxygenation Index | 16.1 ± 5.4 | 13.1 ± 4.2a | 12.7 ± 4.0a | 14.4 ± 6.8 | 14.1 ± 4.0 | 0.03 | 0.66/(66%) |
| End-insp. Pplateau (cmH2O)e | 29.9 ± 4.5 | 27.9 ± 4.5a | |||||
| End-exp. Pplateau (cmH2O)e | 16.4 ± 2.5 | 15.9 ± 2.3f | |||||
| Driving pressure (cmH2O)e | 13.5 ± 3.7 | 12.0 ± 4.1a | |||||
| C,rs (mL/cmH2O)e | 35.1 ± 11.5 | 41.6 ± 17.9a | |||||
| MAP (kPa) | 10.9 ± 0.9 | 12.3 ± 1.4a | 12.0 ± 1.2a | 11.5 ± 1.2 | 11.4 ± 0.7 | 0.01 | 0.62/(62%) |
| Heart rate (bpm) | 89.1 ± 18.8 | 90.0 ± 18.7 | 90.0 ± 19.0 | 99.1 ± 23.7b,c | 92.2 ± 21.0 | 0.002 | 0.88 (88%) |
| CVP (kPa) | 1.7 ± 0.6 | 1.8 ± 0.5 | 1.8 ± 0.5 | 1.9 ± 0.5 | 1.7 ± 0.5 | 0.86g | |
| Cardiac index (L/min/m2) | 3.25 ± 0.38 | 3.35 ± 0.29 | 3.43 ± 0.36 | 3.11 ± 0.40>c | 3.33 ± 0.34 | 0.009 | 0.61 (61%) |
| Stroke volume index (mL/m2) | 38.3 ± 10.0 | 39.2 ± 10.8 | 40.4 ± 12.2 | 33.5 ± 10.1a,b,c | 38.2 ± 10.3d | 0.001 | 0.90 (90%) |
| DO2I (mL/min/m2) | 363.6 ± 64.6 | 401.6 ± 525a | 407.5 ± 49.6a | 368.5 ± 74.7,c | 373.1 ± 59.1b,c | < 0.001 | 0.83 (83%) |
| VO2I (mL/min/m2) | 103.8 ± 28.5 | 109.3 ± 26.7 | 109.3 ± 28.0 | 98.9 ± 34.6 | 99.2 ± 30.6 | 0.11 | 0.70 (70%) |
| SVRI (dynes/cm5/s/m2)/ | 1744 ± 408 | 1911 ± 373 | 1820 ± 364 | 1905 ± 370 | 1783 ± 322 | 0.07 | 0.82 (82%) |
Values are mean ± SD. CV1 first protocol period of conventional ventilation, HFO high-frequency oscillation, TGI tracheal gas insufflation, CV2 second protocol period of conventional ventilation (see also Fig. 1); “Strategy effect—p value” pertains to the level of significance of the fixed factor “ventilatory strategy” as determined by linear mixed model analysis (see also “Statistical Analysis” of the current text and Additional file 1); “R2/(%) variation explained” has been derived by bivariate linear regression between observed and mixed model-predicted values (see also legend of Fig. 3); ES end-systolic, RVEDA right-ventricular end-diastolic area, LVEDA left ventricular end-diastolic area, RV right ventricle, FAC of the RV RV fractional area change between end-diastole and end-systole [calculated as RVEDA-to-RV end-systolic area difference divided by RVEDA), TAPSE tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, PaO arterial oxygen tension, FiO inspiratory oxygen fraction, ScvO central venous oxygen saturation, End-insp. end-inspiratory, End-exp. end-expiratory, Pplateau plateau pressure, C,rs quasistatic compliance of the respiratory system, MAP mean arterial pressure, bpm beats per min, CVP central venous pressure, DOI oxygen delivery index, VOI oxygen consumption index, SVRI systemic vascular resistance index. Primary outcome (i.e., ES-eccentricity index) data are highlighted in italics
ap < 0.05 versus CV1
bp < 0.05 versus 4 Hz HFO
cp < 0.05 versus 4 Hz HFO-TGI
dp < 0.05 versus 7 Hz HFO
eVariables compared between CV1 and CV2 by a paired t-test. Actual p values of pairwise comparisons are reported in Additional file 2
fIn one patient, CV1 external positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 18 cmH2O and was set at 15 cmH2O during CV2 by error of the attending investigator (see also Fig. 1)
gp value determined by one-way analysis of variance (factor = ventilatory strategy) because convergence was not achieved during the “MIXED procedure” and the validity of mixed-model fit was uncertain