Irene Telias1,2,3, Detajin Junhasavasdikul1,2,4, Nuttapol Rittayamai1,2,5, Lise Piquilloud6, Lu Chen1,2, Niall D Ferguson1,7,3,8, Ewan C Goligher1,3,8, Laurent Brochard1,2. 1. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine and. 2. Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital and. 5. Division of Respiratory Diseases and Tuberculosis, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 6. Adult Intensive Care and Burn Unit, University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; and. 7. Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Rationale: Monitoring and controlling respiratory drive and effort may help to minimize lung and diaphragm injury. Airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) is a noninvasive measure of respiratory drive. Objectives: To determine 1) the validity of "ventilator" P0.1 (P0.1vent) displayed on the screen as a measure of drive, 2) the ability of P0.1 to detect potentially injurious levels of effort, and 3) how P0.1vent displayed by different ventilators compares to a "reference" P0.1 (P0.1ref) measured from airway pressure recording during an occlusion. Methods: Analysis of three studies in patients, one in healthy subjects, under assisted ventilation, and a bench study with six ventilators. P0.1vent was validated against measures of drive (electrical activity of the diaphragm and muscular pressure over time) and P0.1ref. Performance of P0.1ref and P0.1vent to detect predefined potentially injurious effort was tested using derivation and validation datasets using esophageal pressure-time product as the reference standard.Measurements and Main Results: P0.1vent correlated well with measures of drive and with the esophageal pressure-time product (within-subjects R2 = 0.8). P0.1ref >3.5 cm H2O was 80% sensitive and 77% specific for detecting high effort (≥200 cm H2O ⋅ s ⋅ min-1); P0.1ref ≤1.0 cm H2O was 100% sensitive and 92% specific for low effort (≤50 cm H2O ⋅ s ⋅ min-1). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for P0.1vent to detect potentially high and low effort were 0.81 and 0.92, respectively. Bench experiments showed a low mean bias for P0.1vent compared with P0.1ref for most ventilators but precision varied; in patients, precision was lower. Ventilators estimating P0.1vent without occlusions could underestimate P0.1ref.Conclusions: P0.1 is a reliable bedside tool to assess respiratory drive and detect potentially injurious inspiratory effort.
Rationale: Monitoring and controlling respiratory drive and effort may help to minimize lung and diaphragm injury. Airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) is a noninvasive measure of respiratory drive. Objectives: To determine 1) the validity of "ventilator" P0.1 (P0.1vent) displayed on the screen as a measure of drive, 2) the ability of P0.1 to detect potentially injurious levels of effort, and 3) how P0.1vent displayed by different ventilators compares to a "reference" P0.1 (P0.1ref) measured from airway pressure recording during an occlusion. Methods: Analysis of three studies in patients, one in healthy subjects, under assisted ventilation, and a bench study with six ventilators. P0.1vent was validated against measures of drive (electrical activity of the diaphragm and muscular pressure over time) and P0.1ref. Performance of P0.1ref and P0.1vent to detect predefined potentially injurious effort was tested using derivation and validation datasets using esophageal pressure-time product as the reference standard.Measurements and Main Results: P0.1vent correlated well with measures of drive and with the esophageal pressure-time product (within-subjects R2 = 0.8). P0.1ref >3.5 cm H2O was 80% sensitive and 77% specific for detecting high effort (≥200 cm H2O ⋅ s ⋅ min-1); P0.1ref ≤1.0 cm H2O was 100% sensitive and 92% specific for low effort (≤50 cm H2O ⋅ s ⋅ min-1). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for P0.1vent to detect potentially high and low effort were 0.81 and 0.92, respectively. Bench experiments showed a low mean bias for P0.1vent compared with P0.1ref for most ventilators but precision varied; in patients, precision was lower. Ventilators estimating P0.1vent without occlusions could underestimate P0.1ref.Conclusions: P0.1 is a reliable bedside tool to assess respiratory drive and detect potentially injurious inspiratory effort.
Authors: Robinder G Khemani; Jessica T Lee; David Wu; Edward J Schenck; Margaret M Hayes; Patricia A Kritek; Gökhan M Mutlu; Hayley B Gershengorn; Rémi Coudroy Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Aline Mela Dos Reis; Thais Dias Midega; Rodrigo Octavio Deliberato; Alistair Ew Johnson; Lucas Bulgarelli; Thiago Domingos Correa; Leo Anthony Celi; Paolo Pelosi; Marcelo Gama De Abreu; Marcus J Schultz; Ary Serpa Neto Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-05
Authors: Ewan C Goligher; Martin Dres; Bhakti K Patel; Sarina K Sahetya; Jeremy R Beitler; Irene Telias; Takeshi Yoshida; Katerina Vaporidi; Domenico Luca Grieco; Tom Schepens; Giacomo Grasselli; Savino Spadaro; Jose Dianti; Marcelo Amato; Giacomo Bellani; Alexandre Demoule; Eddy Fan; Niall D Ferguson; Dimitrios Georgopoulos; Claude Guérin; Robinder G Khemani; Franco Laghi; Alain Mercat; Francesco Mojoli; Coen A C Ottenheijm; Samir Jaber; Leo Heunks; Jordi Mancebo; Tommaso Mauri; Antonio Pesenti; Laurent Brochard Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 30.528
Authors: Pierre Esnault; Michael Cardinale; Sami Hraiech; Philippe Goutorbe; Karine Baumstrack; Eloi Prud'homme; Julien Bordes; Jean-Marie Forel; Eric Meaudre; Laurent Papazian; Christophe Guervilly Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ewan C Goligher; Annemijn H Jonkman; Jose Dianti; Katerina Vaporidi; Jeremy R Beitler; Bhakti K Patel; Takeshi Yoshida; Samir Jaber; Martin Dres; Tommaso Mauri; Giacomo Bellani; Alexandre Demoule; Laurent Brochard; Leo Heunks Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 41.787