Virtual patient framework for the testing of mechanical ventilation airway pressure and flow settings protocol.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Model-based and personalised decision support systems are emerging to guide mechanical ventilation (MV) treatment for respiratory failure patients. However, model-based treatments require resource-intensive clinical trials prior to implementation. This research presents a framework for generating virtual patients for testing model-based decision support, and direct use in MV treatment. METHODS: The virtual MV patient framework consists of 3 stages: 1) Virtual patient generation, 2) Patient-level validation, and 3) Virtual clinical trials. The virtual patients are generated from retrospective MV patient data using a clinically validated respiratory mechanics model whose respiratory parameters (respiratory elastance and resistance) capture patient-specific pulmonary conditions and responses to MV care over time. Patient-level validation compares the predicted responses from the virtual patient to their retrospective results for clinically implemented MV settings and changes to care. Patient-level validated virtual patients create a platform to conduct virtual trials, where the safety of closed-loop model-based protocols can be evaluated. RESULTS: This research creates and presents a virtual patient platform of 100 virtual patients generated from retrospective data. Patient-level validation reported median errors of 3.26% for volume-control and 6.80% for pressure-control ventilation mode. A virtual trial on a model-based protocol demonstrates the potential efficacy of using virtual patients for prospective evaluation and testing of the protocol. CONCLUSION: The virtual patient framework shows the potential to safely and rapidly design, develop, and optimise new model-based MV decision support systems and protocols using clinically validated models and computer simulation, which could ultimately improve patient care and outcomes in MV.

Stochastic integrated model-based protocol for volume-controlled ventilation setting.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Mechanical ventilation (MV) is the primary form of care for respiratory failure patients. MV settings are based on general clinical guidelines, intuition, and experience. This approach is not patient-specific and patients may thus experience suboptimal, potentially harmful MV care. This study presents the Stochastic integrated VENT (SiVENT) protocol which combines model-based approaches of the VENT protocol from previous works, with stochastic modelling to take the variation of patient respiratory elastance over time into consideration. METHODS: A stochastic model of Ers is integrated into the VENT protocol from previous works to develop the SiVENT protocol, to account for both intra- and inter-patient variability. A cohort of 20 virtual MV patients based on retrospective patient data are used to validate the performance of this method for volume-controlled (VC) ventilation. A performance evaluation was conducted where the SiVENT and VENT protocols were implemented in 1080 instances each to compare the two protocols and evaluate the difference in reduction of possible MV settings achieved by each. RESULTS: From an initial number of 189,000 possible MV setting combinations, the VENT protocol reduced this number to a median of 10,612, achieving a reduction of 94.4% across the cohort. With the integration of the stochastic model component, the SiVENT protocol reduced this number from 189,000 to a median of 9329, achieving a reduction of 95.1% across the cohort. The SiVENT protocol reduces the number of possible combinations provided to the user by more than 1000 combinations as compared to the VENT protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a stochastic model component into a model-based approach to selecting MV settings improves the ability of a decision support system to recommend patient-specific MV settings. It specifically considers inter- and intra-patient variability in respiratory elastance and eliminates potentially harmful settings based on clinically recommended pressure thresholds. Clinical input and local protocols can further reduce the number of safe setting combinations. The results for the SiVENT protocol justify further investigation of its prediction accuracy and clinical validation trials.

Protocol conception for safe selection of mechanical ventilation settings for respiratory failure Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Mechanical ventilation is the primary form of care provided to respiratory failure patients. Limited guidelines and conflicting results from major clinical trials means selection of mechanical ventilation settings relies heavily on clinician experience and intuition. Determining optimal mechanical ventilation settings is therefore difficult, where non-optimal mechanical ventilation can be deleterious. To overcome these difficulties, this research proposes a model-based method to manage the wide range of possible mechanical ventilation settings, while also considering patient-specific conditions and responses. METHODS: This study shows the design and development of the "VENT" protocol, which integrates the single compartment linear lung model with clinical recommendations from landmark studies, to aid clinical decision-making in selecting mechanical ventilation settings. Using retrospective breath data from a cohort of 24 patients, 3,566 and 2,447 clinically implemented VC and PC settings were extracted respectively. Using this data, a VENT protocol application case study and clinical comparison is performed, and the prediction accuracy of the VENT protocol is validated against actual measured outcomes of pressure and volume. RESULTS: The study shows the VENT protocols' potential use in narrowing an overwhelming number of possible mechanical ventilation setting combinations by up to 99.9%. The comparison with retrospective clinical data showed that only 33% and 45% of clinician settings were approved by the VENT protocol. The unapproved settings were mainly due to exceeding clinical recommended settings. When utilising the single compartment model in the VENT protocol for forecasting peak pressures and tidal volumes, median [IQR] prediction error values of 0.75 [0.31 - 1.83] cmH2O and 0.55 [0.19 - 1.20] mL/kg were obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the proposed protocol with retrospective clinically implemented settings shows the protocol can prevent harmful mechanical ventilation setting combinations for which clinicians would be otherwise unaware. The VENT protocol warrants a more detailed clinical study to validate its potential usefulness in a clinical setting.

Stochastic Modelling of Respiratory System Elastance for Mechanically Ventilated Respiratory Failure Patients.

While lung protective mechanical ventilation (MV) guidelines have been developed to avoid ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), a one-size-fits-all approach cannot benefit every individual patient. Hence, there is significant need for the ability to provide patient-specific MV settings to ensure safety, and optimise patient care. Model-based approaches enable patient-specific care by identifying time-varying patient-specific parameters, such as respiratory elastance, Ers, to capture inter- and intra-patient variability. However, patient-specific parameters evolve with time, as a function of disease progression and patient condition, making predicting their future values crucial for recommending patient-specific MV settings. This study employs stochastic modelling to predict future Ers values using retrospective patient data to develop and validate a model indicating future intra-patient variability of Ers. Cross validation results show stochastic modelling can predict future elastance ranges with 92.59 and 68.56% of predicted values within the 5-95% and the 25-75% range, respectively. This range can be used to ensure patients receive adequate minute ventilation should elastance rise and minimise the risk of VILI should elastance fall. The results show the potential for model-based protocols using stochastic model prediction of future Ers values to provide safe and patient-specific MV. These results warrant further investigation to validate its clinical utility.