Airway and transpulmonary driving pressures and mechanical powers selected by INTELLiVENT-ASV in passive, mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) are predictors of the risk of ventilation- induced lung injuries (VILI) in mechanically ventilated patients. INTELLiVENT-ASV® is a closed-loop ventilation mode that automatically adjusts respiratory rate and tidal volume, according to the patient's respiratory mechanics. OBJECTIVES: This prospective observational study investigated ΔP and MP (and also transpulmonary ΔP (ΔPL) and MP (MPL) for a subgroup of patients) delivered by INTELLiVENT-ASV. METHODS: Adult patients admitted to the ICU were included if they were sedated and met the criteria for a single lung condition (normal lungs, COPD, or ARDS). INTELLiVENT-ASV was used with default target settings. If PEEP was above 16 cmH2O, the recruitment strategy used transpulmonary pressure as a reference, and ΔPL and MPL were computed. Measurements were made once for each patient. RESULTS: Of the 255 patients included, 98 patients were classified as normal-lungs, 28 as COPD, and 129 as ARDS patients. The median ΔP was 8 (7 - 10), 10 (8 - 12), and 9 (8 - 11) cmH2O for normal-lungs, COPD, and ARDS patients, respectively. The median MP was 9.1 (4.9 - 13.5), 11.8 (8.6 - 16.5), and 8.8 (5.6 - 13.8) J/min for normal-lungs, COPD, and ARDS patients, respectively. For the 19 patients managed with transpulmonary pressure ΔPL was 6 (4 - 7) cmH2O and MPL was 3.6 (3.1 - 4.4) J/min. CONCLUSIONS: In this short term observation study, INTELLiVENT-ASV selected ΔP and MP considered in safe ranges for lung protection. In a subgroup of ARDS patients, the combination of a recruitment strategy and INTELLiVENT-ASV resulted in an apparently safe ΔPL and MPL.

Parameters for Simulation of Adult Subjects During Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Simulation studies are often used to examine ventilator performance. However, there are no standards for selecting simulation parameters. This study collected data in passively-ventilated adult human subjects and summarized the results as a set of parameters that can be used for simulation studies of intubated, passive, adult subjects with normal lungs, COPD, or ARDS. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients admitted to the ICU were included if they were deeply sedated and mechanically ventilated for <48 h without any spontaneous breathing activity. Subjects were classified as having normal lungs, COPD, or ARDS. Respiratory mechanics variables were collected once per subject. Static compliance was calculated as the ratio between tidal volume and driving pressure. Inspiratory resistance was measured by the least-squares fitting method. The expiratory time constant was estimated by the tidal volume/flow ratio. RESULTS: Of the 359 subjects included, 138 were classified as having normal lungs, 181 as ARDS, and 40 as COPD. Median (interquartile range) static compliance was significantly lower in ARDS subjects as compared with normal lung and COPD subjects (39 [32-50] mL/cm H2O vs 54 [44-64] and 59 [43-75] mL/cm H2O, respectively, P < .001). Inspiratory resistance was significantly higher in COPD subjects as compared with normal lung and ARDS subjects (22 [16-33] cm H2O/L/s vs 13 [10-15] and 12 [9-14] cm H2O/L/s, respectively, P < .001). The expiratory time constant was significantly different for each lung condition (0.60 [0.51-0.71], 1.07 [0.68-2.14], and 0.46 [0.40-0.55] s for normal lung, COPD, and ARDS subjects, respectively, P < .001). In the subgroup of subjects with ARDS, there were no significant differences in respiratory mechanics variables among mild, moderate, and severe ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides educators, researchers, and manufacturers with a standard set of practical parameters for simulating the respiratory system's mechanical properties in passive conditions.