Individualised flow-controlled ventilation reduces applied mechanical power and improves ventilation efficiency in a porcine intra-abdominal hypertension model.

BACKGROUND: Aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility and effects of individualised flow-controlled ventilation (FCV), based on compliance guided pressure settings, compared to standard of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in a porcine intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) model. The primary aim of this study was to investigate oxygenation. Secondary aims were to assess respiratory and metabolic variables and lung tissue aeration. METHODS: Pigs were randomly assigned to FCV (n = 9) and PCV (n = 9). IAH was induced by insufflation of air into the abdomen to induce IAH grades ranging from 0 to 3. At each IAH grade FCV was undertaken using compliance guided pressure settings, or PCV (n = 9) was undertaken with the positive end-expiratory pressure titrated for maximum compliance and the peak pressure set to achieve a tidal volume of 7 ml/kg. Gas exchange, ventilator settings and derived formulas were recorded at two timepoints for each grade of IAH. Lung aeration was assessed by a computed tomography scan at IAH grade 3. RESULTS: All 18 pigs (median weight 54 kg [IQR 51-67]) completed the observation period of 4 h. Oxygenation was comparable at each IAH grade, but a significantly lower minute volume was required to secure normocapnia in FCV at all IAH grades (7.6 vs. 14.4, MD - 6.8 (95% CI - 8.5 to - 5.2) l/min; p < 0.001). There was also a significant reduction of applied mechanical power being most evident at IAH grade 3 (25.9 vs. 57.6, MD - 31.7 (95% CI - 39.7 to - 23.7) J/min; p < 0.001). Analysis of Hounsfield unit distribution of the computed tomography scans revealed a significant reduction in non- (5 vs. 8, MD - 3 (95% CI - 6 to 0) %; p = 0.032) and poorly-aerated lung tissue (7 vs. 15, MD - 6 (95% CI - 13 to - 3) %, p = 0.002) for FCV. Concomitantly, normally-aerated lung tissue was significantly increased (84 vs. 76, MD 8 (95% CI 2 to 15) %; p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Individualised FCV showed similar oxygenation but required a significantly lower minute volume for CO2-removal, which led to a remarkable reduction of applied mechanical power. Additionally, there was a shift from non- and poorly-aerated lung tissue to normally-aerated lung tissue in FCV compared to PCV.

Improved ventilation efficiency due to continuous gas flow compared to decelerating gas flow in mechanical ventilation: results of a porcine trial.

In pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV), a decelerating gas flow pattern occurs during inspiration and expiration. In contrast, flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) guarantees a continuous gas flow throughout the entire ventilation cycle where the inspiration and expiration phases are simply performed by a change of gas flow direction. The aim of this trial was to highlight the effects of different flow patterns on respiratory variables and gas exchange. Anesthetized pigs were ventilated with either FCV or PCV for 1 h and thereafter for 30 min each in a crossover comparison. Both ventilation modes were set with a peak pressure of 15 cmH2O, positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cmH2O, a respiratory rate of 20/min, and a fraction of inspired oxygen at 0.3. All respiratory variables were collected every 15 min. Tidal volume and respiratory minute volume were significantly lower in FCV (n = 5) compared with PCV (n = 5) animals [4.6 vs. 6.6, MD -2.0 (95% CI -2.6 to -1.4) mL/kg; P < 0.001 and 7.3 vs. 9.5, MD -2.2 (95% CI -3.3 to -1.0) L/min; P = 0.006]. Notwithstanding these differences, CO2-removal as well as oxygenation was not inferior in FCV compared with PCV. Mechanical ventilation with identical ventilator settings resulted in lower tidal volumes and consecutive minute volume in FCV compared with PCV. This finding can be explained physically by the continuous gas flow pattern in FCV that necessitates a lower alveolar pressure amplitude. Interestingly, gas exchange was comparable in both groups, which is suggestive of improved ventilation efficiency at a continuous gas flow pattern.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study examined the effects of a continuous (flow-controlled ventilation, FCV) vs. decelerating (pressure-controlled ventilation, PCV) gas flow pattern during mechanical ventilation. It was shown that FCV necessitates a lower alveolar pressure amplitude leading to reduced applied tidal volumes and consequently minute volume. Notwithstanding these differences, CO2-removal as well as oxygenation was not inferior in FCV compared with PCV, which is suggestive of improved gas exchange efficiency at a continuous gas flow pattern.

Short time effects of compliance guided flow-controlled ventilation versus standard of care pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective porcine trial.

BACKGROUND: Flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) represents a novel ventilation method, which guarantees a continuous gas flow during inspiration and expiration. Long term comparison to volume- and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) after five- and ten hours have shown improved gas exchange parameters and lung tissue aeration. Aim of this porcine trial was to compare gas exchange parameters and lung tissue aeration in short time application of FCV compared to PCV to determine effects which will most probably pertain in short lasting procedures under general anesthesia. METHODS: After induction of general anesthesia nine pigs were randomly ventilated either with compliance guided FCV settings or standard of PCV with compliance titrated positive end-expiratory pressure and peak pressure set to achieve a tidal volume of 7 mL/kg. Subsequently an arterial blood gas sample was obtained, and a computed tomography scan was performed. Afterwards, each animal was extubated and on the following day the same protocol was performed again with the alternative ventilation method. RESULTS: Primary analysis of 18 datasets from nine animals (with paired comparison) revealed a significantly improved oxygenation with FCV compared to control (paO2 118 vs. 109, 95% CI 2 to 16 mm Hg; P=0.042). The required respiratory minute volume was significantly lower with FCV (7.4 vs. 10.8, 95% CI -4.0 to -2.9 L/min; P<0.001) to achieve similar levels of normocapnia. However, lung tissue aeration did not significantly differ between ventilation methods. CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term ventilation comparison FCV improved gas exchange parameters without differences in lung tissue aeration compared to PCV.

Individualised flow-controlled versus pressure-controlled ventilation in a porcine oleic acid-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome model.

BACKGROUND: A continuous gas flow provided by flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) facilitates accurate dynamic compliance measurement and allows the clinician to individually optimise positive end-expiratory and peak pressure settings accordingly. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of gas exchange and impact on haemodynamics between individualised FCV and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in a porcine model of oleic acid-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Randomised controlled interventional trial conducted on 16 pigs. SETTING: Animal operating facility at the Medical University Innsbruck. INTERVENTIONS: ARDS was induced in lung healthy pigs by intravenous infusion of oleic acid until moderate-to-severe ARDS at a stable Horowitz quotient (PaO 2 FiO 2-1 ) of 80 to 120 over a period of 30 min was obtained. Ventilation was then either performed with individualised FCV ( n  = 8) established by compliance-guided pressure titration or PCV ( n  = 8) with compliance-guided titration of the positive end-expiratory pressure and peak pressure set to achieve a tidal volume of 6 ml kg -1 over a period of 2 h. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gas exchange parameters were assessed by the PaO 2 FiO 2-1 quotient and CO 2 removal by the PaCO 2 value in relation to required respiratory minute volume. Required catecholamine support for haemodynamic stabilisation was measured. RESULTS: The FCV group showed significantly improved oxygenation [149.2 vs. 110.4, median difference (MD) 38.7 (8.0 to 69.5) PaO 2 FiO 2-1 ; P  = 0.027] and CO 2 removal [PaCO 2 7.25 vs. 9.05, MD -1.8 (-2.87 to -0.72) kPa; P  = 0.006] at a significantly lower respiratory minute volume [8.4 vs. 11.9, MD -3.6 (-5.6 to -1.5) l min -1 ; P  = 0.005] compared with PCV. In addition, in FCV-pigs, haemodynamic stabilisation occurred with a significant reduction of required catecholamine support [norepinephrine 0.26 vs. 0.86, MD -0.61 (-1.12 to -0.09) µg kg -1  min -1 ; P  = 0.037] during 2 ventilation hours. CONCLUSION: In this oleic acid-induced porcine ARDS model, individualised FCV significantly improved gas exchange and haemodynamic stability compared with PCV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol no.: BMBWF-66.011/0105-V/3b/2019).

Individualised flow-controlled ventilation versus pressure-controlled ventilation in a porcine model of thoracic surgery requiring one-lung ventilation: A laboratory study.

BACKGROUND: Flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) enables precise determination of dynamic compliance due to a continuous flow coupled with direct tracheal pressure measurement. Thus, pressure settings can be adjusted accordingly in an individualised approach. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare gas exchange of individualised FCV to pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in a porcine model of simulated thoracic surgery requiring one-lung ventilation (OLV). DESIGN: Controlled interventional trial conducted on 16 domestic pigs. SETTING: Animal operating facility at the Medical University of Innsbruck. INTERVENTIONS: Thoracic surgery was simulated with left-sided thoracotomy and subsequent collapse of the lung over a period of three hours. When using FCV, ventilation was performed with compliance-guided pressure settings. When using PCV, end-expiratory pressure was adapted to achieve best compliance with peak pressure adjusted to achieve a tidal volume of 6 ml kg -1 during OLV. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gas exchange was assessed by the Horowitz index (= P aO 2 /FIO 2 ) and CO 2 removal by the P aCO 2 value in relation to required respiratory minute volume. RESULTS: In the FCV group ( n  = 8) normocapnia could be maintained throughout the OLV trial despite a significantly lower respiratory minute volume compared to the PCV group ( n  = 8) (8.0 vs. 11.6, 95% confidence interval, CI -4.5 to -2.7 l min -1 ; P  < 0.001), whereas permissive hypercapnia had to be accepted in PCV ( P aCO 2 5.68 vs. 6.89, 95% CI -1.7 to -0.7 kPa; P  < 0.001). The Horowitz index was comparable in both groups but calculated mechanical power was significantly lower in FCV (7.5 vs. 22.0, 95% CI -17.2 to -11.8 J min -1 ; P  < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this porcine study FCV maintained normocapnia during OLV, whereas permissive hypercapnia had to be accepted in PCV despite a substantially higher minute volume. Reducing exposure of the lungs to mechanical power applied by the ventilator in FCV offers a possible advantage for this mode of ventilation in terms of lung protection.