Sleep and non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency.

OBJECTIVE: Noninvasive ventilation with pressure support (NIV-PS) therapy can augment ventilation; however, such therapy is fixed and may not adapt to varied patient needs. We tested the hypothesis that in patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency, a newer mode of ventilation [averaged volume assured pressure support (AVAPS)] and lateral decubitus position were associated with better sleep efficiency than NIV-PS and supine position. Our secondary aim was to assess the effect of mode of ventilation, body position, and sleep-wakefulness state on minute ventilation (V(E)) in the same patients. DESIGN: Single-blind, randomized, cross-over, prospective study. SETTING: Academic institution. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight patients. INTERVENTIONS: NIV-PS or AVAPS therapy. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Three sleep studies were performed in each patient; prescription validation night, AVAPS or NIV-PS, and crossover to alternate mode. Sleep was not different between AVAPS and NIV-PS. Supine body position was associated with worse sleep efficiency than lateral decubitus position (77.9 +/- 22.9 and 85.2 +/- 10.5%; P = 0.04). V(E) was lower during stage 2 NREM and REM sleep than during wakefulness (P < 0.0001); was lower during NIV-PS than AVAPS (P = 0.029); tended to be lower with greater body mass index (P = 0.07), but was not influenced by body position. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency, supine position was associated with worse sleep efficiency than the lateral decubitus position. AVAPS was comparable to NIV-PS therapy with regard to sleep, but statistically greater V(E) during AVAPS than NIV-PS of unclear significance was observed. V(E) was determined by sleep-wakefulness state, body mass index, and mode of therapy.

Assessment of sleep in ventilator-supported critically III patients.

OBJECTIVES: In critically ill patients, sleep derangements are reported to be severe using Rechtschaffen and Kales (R&K) methodology; however, whether such methodology can reliably assess sleep during critical illness is unknown. We set out to determine the reproducibility of 4 different sleep-assessment methods (3 manual and 1 computer-based) for ventilator-supported critically ill patients and also to quantify the extent to which the reproducibility of the manual methods for measuring sleep differed between critically ill and ambulatory (control) patients. DESIGN: Observational methodologic study. SETTING: Academic center. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation and age-matched controls underwent polysomnography. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Reproducibility for the computer-based method (spectral analysis of electroencephalography [EEG]) was better than that for the manual methods: R&K methodology and sleep-wakefulness organization pattern (P = 0.03). In critically ill patients, the proportion of misclassifications for measurements using spectral analysis, sleep-wakefulness organization pattern, and R&K methodology were 0%, 36%, and 53%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The EEG pattern of burst suppression was not observed. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the manual sleep-assessment methods for critically ill patients (kappa = 0.52 +/- 0.23) was worse than that for control patients (kappa = 0.89 +/- 0.13; P = 0.03). In critically ill patients, the overall reliability of the R&K methodology was relatively low for assessing sleep (kappa = 0.19), but detection of rapid eye movement sleep revealed good agreement (kappa = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Reproducibility for spectral analysis of EEG was better than that for the manual methods: R&K methodology and sleep-wakefulness organization pattern. For assessment of sleep in critically ill patients, the use of spectral analysis, sleep-wakefulness organization state, or rapid eye movement sleep alone may be preferred over the R&K methodology.

Patient-ventilator interaction and sleep in mechanically ventilated patients: pressure support versus proportional assist ventilation.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the role of patient-ventilator asynchrony in the etiology of sleep disruption and determine whether optimizing patient-ventilator interactions by using proportional assist ventilation improves sleep. DESIGN: Randomized crossover clinical trial. SETTING: A tertiary university medical-surgical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Thirteen patients during weaning from mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive pressure support ventilation or proportional assist ventilation on the first night and then crossed over to the alternative mode for the second night. Polysomnography and measurement of light, noise, esophageal pressure, airway pressure, and flow were performed from 10 pm to 8 am. Ventilator settings (pressure level during pressure support ventilation and resistive and elastic proportionality factors during proportional assist ventilation) were set to obtain a 50% reduction of the inspiratory work (pressure time product per minute) performed during a spontaneous breathing trial. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Arousals per hour of sleep time during pressure support ventilation were 16 (range 2-74) and 9 (range 1-41) during proportional assist ventilation (p = .02). Overall sleep quality was significantly improved on proportional assist ventilation (p < .05) due to the combined effect of fewer arousals per hour, fewer awakenings per hour (3.5 [0-24] vs. 5.5 [1-24]), and greater rapid eye movement (9% [0-31] vs. 4% [0-23]), and slow wave (3% [0-16] vs. 1% [0-10]) sleep. Tidal volume and minute ventilation were lower on proportional assist ventilation, allowing for a greater increase in Paco2 during the night. Patient-ventilator asynchronies per hour were lower with proportional assist ventilation than with pressure support ventilation (24 +/- 15 vs. 53 +/- 59; p = .02) and correlated with the number of arousals per hour (R = .65, p = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patient ventilator discordance causes sleep disruption. Proportional assist ventilation seems more efficacious than pressure support ventilation in matching ventilatory requirements with ventilator assistance, therefore resulting in fewer patient-ventilator asynchronies and better quality of sleep.