Airway Pressure Release Ventilation: Is It Really Different in Adults and Children?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dong M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6775888 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Airway Pressure Release Ventilation: Is It Really Different in Adults and Children?
Dong MeiLing M Cheng JiangLi J Wang Bo B Zhou YongFang Y Kang Yan Y
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 20190901 6
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6775886 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7808079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesLow tidal volume (= tidal volume ≤ 6 mL/kg, predicted body weight) ventilation using volume control benefits patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway pressure release ventilation is an alternative to low tidal volume-volume control ventilation, but the release breaths generated are variable and can exceed tidal volume breaths of low tidal volume-volume control. We evaluate the application of a low tidal volume-compatible airway pressure release ventilation protocol that manages release volumes on both clinical and feasibility endpoints.DesignWe designed a prospective randomized trial in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We randomized patients to low tidal volume-volume control, low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation, and traditional airway pressure release ventilation with a planned enrollment of 246 patients. The study was stopped early because of low enrollment and inability to consistently achieve tidal volumes less than 6.5 mL/kg in the low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation arm. Although the primary clinical study endpoint was PaO2/FIO2 on study day 3, we highlight the feasibility outcomes related to tidal volumes in both arms.SettingFour Intermountain Healthcare tertiary ICUs.PatientsAdult ICU patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.InterventionsLow tidal volume-volume control, airway pressure release ventilation, and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation.Measurements and main resultsWe observed wide variability and higher tidal (release for airway pressure release ventilation) volumes in both airway pressure release ventilation (8.6 mL/kg; 95% CI, 7.8-9.6) and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (8.0; 95% CI, 7.3-8.9) than volume control (6.8; 95% CI, 6.2-7.5; p = 0.005) with no difference between airway pressure release ventilation and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (p = 0.58). Recognizing the limitations of small sample size, we observed no difference in 52 patients in day 3 PaO2/ FIO2 (p = 0.92). We also observed no significant difference between arms in sedation, vasoactive medications, or occurrence of pneumothorax.ConclusionsAirway pressure release ventilation resulted in release volumes often exceeding 12 mL/kg despite a protocol designed to target low tidal volume ventilation. Current airway pressure release ventilation protocols are unable to achieve consistent and reproducible delivery of low tidal volume ventilation goals. A large-scale efficacy trial of low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation is not feasible at this time in the absence of an explicit, generalizable, and reproducible low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation protocol.
| S-EPMC6250244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImproper mechanical ventilation can exacerbate acute lung damage, causing a secondary ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). We hypothesized that VILI can be reduced by modifying specific components of the ventilation waveform (mechanical breath), and we studied the impact of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and controlled mandatory ventilation (CMV) on the lung micro-anatomy (alveoli and conducting airways). The distribution of gas during inspiration and expiration and the strain generated during mechanical ventilation in the micro-anatomy (micro-strain) were calculated.Study designRats were anesthetized, surgically prepared, and randomized into 1 uninjured control group (n = 2) and 4 groups with lung injury: APRV 75% (n = 2), time at expiration (TLow) set to terminate appropriately at 75% of peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR); APRV 10% (n = 2), TLow set to terminate inappropriately at 10% of PEFR; CMV with PEEP 5 cm H2O (PEEP 5; n = 2); or PEEP 16 cm H2O (PEEP 16; n = 2). Lung injury was induced in the experimental groups by Tween lavage and ventilated with their respective settings. Lungs were fixed at peak inspiration and end expiration for standard histology. Conducting airway and alveolar air space areas were quantified and conducting airway micro-strain was calculated.ResultsAll lung injury groups redistributed inspired gas away from alveoli into the conducting airways. The APRV 75% minimized gas redistribution and micro-strain in the conducting airways and provided the alveolar air space occupancy most similar to control at both inspiration and expiration.ConclusionsIn an injured lung, APRV 75% maintained micro-anatomic gas distribution similar to that of the normal lung. The lung protection demonstrated in previous studies using APRV 75% may be due to a more homogeneous distribution of gas at the micro-anatomic level as well as a reduction in conducting airway micro-strain.
| S-EPMC4350231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAPRV has been used for ARDS in the past. Little is known about the risk of ventilator- induced lung- injury (VILI) in APRV vs. BIPAP in the management of in COVID19-associated ARDS (CARDS). This study aimed to compare transpulmonary pressures (TPP) in APRV vs. BIPAP in CARDS in regard to lung protective ventilator settings.MethodsThis retrospective, monocentric cohort study (ethical approval: 21-1553) assessed all adult ICU- patients with CARDS who were ventilated with BIPAP vs. APRV and monitored with TPP from 03/2020 to 10/2021. Ventilator-settings / -pressures, TPP, hemodynamic and arterial blood gas parameters were compared in both modes.Results20 non- spontaneously breathing patients could be included in the study: Median TPPendexpiratory was lower / negative in APRV (-1.20mbar; IQR - 4.88 / +4.53) vs. positive in BIPAP (+ 3.4mbar; IQR + 1.95 / +8.57; p < .01). Median TPPendinspiratory did not differ. In APRV, mean tidal- volume per body- weight (7.05 ± 1.28 vs. 5.03 ± 0.77 ml; p < .01) and mean airway- pressure (27.08 ± 1.67 vs. 22.68 ± 2.62mbar; p < .01) were higher. There was no difference in PEEP, peak-, plateau- or driving- pressure, compliance, oxygenation and CO2- removal between both modes.ConclusionDespite higher tidal- volumes / airway-pressures in APRV vs. BIPAP, TPPendinspiratory was not increased. However, in APRV median TPPendexpiratory was negative indicating an elevated risk of occult atelectasis in APRV- mode in CARDS. Therefore, TPP- monitoring could be a useful tool for monitoring a safe application of APRV- mode in CARDS.
| S-EPMC11786409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCritical organ shortages have resulted in ex vivo lung perfusion gaining clinical acceptance for lung evaluation and rehabilitation to expand the use of donation after circulatory death organs for lung transplantation. We hypothesized that an innovative use of airway pressure release ventilation during ex vivo lung perfusion improves lung function after transplantation.MethodsTwo groups (n = 4 animals/group) of porcine donation after circulatory death donor lungs were procured after hypoxic cardiac arrest and a 2-hour period of warm ischemia, followed by a 4-hour period of ex vivo lung perfusion rehabilitation with standard conventional volume-based ventilation or pressure-based airway pressure release ventilation. Left lungs were subsequently transplanted into recipient animals and reperfused for 4 hours. Blood gases for partial pressure of oxygen/inspired oxygen fraction ratios, airway pressures for calculation of compliance, and percent wet weight gain during ex vivo lung perfusion and reperfusion were measured.ResultsAirway pressure release ventilation during ex vivo lung perfusion significantly improved left lung oxygenation at 2 hours (561.5 ± 83.9 mm Hg vs 341.1 ± 136.1 mm Hg) and 4 hours (569.1 ± 18.3 mm Hg vs 463.5 ± 78.4 mm Hg). Likewise, compliance was significantly higher at 2 hours (26.0 ± 5.2 mL/cm H2O vs 15.0 ± 4.6 mL/cm H2O) and 4 hours (30.6 ± 1.3 mL/cm H2O vs 17.7 ± 5.9 mL/cm H2O) after transplantation. Finally, airway pressure release ventilation significantly reduced lung edema development on ex vivo lung perfusion on the basis of percentage of weight gain (36.9% ± 14.6% vs 73.9% ± 4.9%). There was no difference in additional edema accumulation 4 hours after reperfusion.ConclusionsPressure-directed airway pressure release ventilation strategy during ex vivo lung perfusion improves the rehabilitation of severely injured donation after circulatory death lungs. After transplant, these lungs demonstrate superior lung-specific oxygenation and dynamic compliance compared with lungs ventilated with standard conventional ventilation. This strategy, if implemented into clinical ex vivo lung perfusion protocols, could advance the field of donation after circulatory death lung rehabilitation to expand the lung donor pool.
| S-EPMC5164862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo investigate the effects of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) or airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) as a rescue therapy on children with moderate and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).MethodsWe retrospectively enrolled 47 children with ARDS who were transitioned from synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) to either HFOV or APRV for 48 h or longer after failure of SIMV. The parameters of demographic data, arterial blood gases, ventilator settings, oxygenation index (OI), and PaO2/FiO2 (PF) ratio during the first 48 h of HFOV and APRV were recorded.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the HFOV and APRV groups with survival rates of 60% and 72.7%, respectively. Compared to pre-transition, the mean airway pressures at 2 and 48 h after transition were higher in both groups (P<0.01), and the PF ratio at 2 and 48 h in both modes was significantly improved (P<0.001). PF ratio and PaCO2 have significant differences at 48 h between two groups. The OI at 2 h after transition had no improvement in either group and was substantially lower at 48 h relative to the pre-transition level (P<0.001) in both groups. At 48 h after the transition to both HFOV and APRV, the survivors had lower mean airway pressures, higher PF ratios, and a lower OIs than non-survivors (P<0.01).ConclusionsThere was no significant difference on the survival rates of HFOV and APRV application as a rescue therapy for ARDS, but improved oxygenation at 48 h reliably discriminated survivors from non-survivors in both groups.
| S-EPMC7347764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAirway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a relatively new mode of ventilation in neonates. We hypothesize that APRV is an effective rescue mode in infants failing conventional ventilation and it is comparable in survival rates to rescue with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV).MethodsThis is a 6-year retrospective cohort study of infants that failed synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) and were rescued with either APRV or HFOV. For comparison, we divided infants into two groups (28-37 and >37 weeks) based on their corrected gestational age (CGA) at failure of SIMV.ResultsNinety infants were included in the study. Infants rescued with APRV (n = 46) had similar survival rates to those rescued with HFOV (n = 44)-28-37 weeks CGA (APRV 78% vs. HFOV 84%, p = 0.68) and >37 weeks CGA (APRV 76% vs. HFOV 72%, p = 0.74). Use of APRV was not associated with an increase in pneumothorax (APRV 0% and HFOV 10%, p = 0.31, in 28-37 weeks CGA, and APRV 0% and HFOV 4%, p = 0.22, in >37 weeks CGA).ConclusionAPRV can be effectively used to rescue infants with refractory respiratory failure on SIMV. When compared to HFOV, rescue with APRV is not associated with an increase in mortality or pneumothorax.
| S-EPMC9085362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mechanical ventilation (MV) is an essential life support method for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is one of the most common critical illnesses with high mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). A lung-protective ventilation strategy based on low tidal volume (LTV) has been recommended since a few years; however, as this did not result in a significant decrease of ARDS-related mortality, a more optimal ventilation mode was required. Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is an old method defined as a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with a brief intermittent release phase based on the open lung concept; it also perfectly fits the ARDS treatment principle. Despite this, APRV has not been widely used in the past, rather only as a rescue measure for ARDS patients who are difficult to oxygenate. Over recent years, with an increased understanding of the pathophysiology of ARDS, APRV has been reproposed to improve patient prognosis. Nevertheless, this mode is still not routinely used in ARDS patients given its vague definition and complexity. Consequently, in this paper, we summarize the studies that used APRV in ARDS, including adults, children, and animals, to illustrate the settings of parameters, effectiveness in the population, safety (especially in children), incidence, and mechanism of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and effects on extrapulmonary organs. Finally, we found that APRV is likely associated with improvement in ARDS outcomes, and does not increase injury to the lungs and other organs, thereby indicating that personalized APRV settings may be the new hope for ARDS treatment.
| S-EPMC8958099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) in very low birth weight infants is limited.To report the authors' institutional experience and to review the current literature regarding the use of APRV in pediatric populations.Neonates <1500 g ventilated using APRV from 2005 to 2006 at McMaster Children's Hospital (Hamilton, Ontario) were retrospectively reviewed. Publications describing APRV in children from 1987 to 2011 were reviewed.Five infants, 24 to 28 weeks' gestational age, were ventilated using APRV. Indications for APRV were refractory hypoxemia (n=3), ventilatory dyssynchrony (n=1) and minimizing sedatives (n=1). All infants appeared to tolerate APRV well with no recorded adverse events. Current pediatric evidence regarding APRV is primarily observational. Published experience reveals that APRV settings in pediatrics often approximate those used in adults, thus deviating from the original guidelines recommended in children. Clinical outcomes, such as oxygenation, ventilation and sedation requirements, are inconsistent.APRV is primarily used as a rescue ventilation mode in children. Neonatal evidence is limited; however, the present study indicates that APRV is feasible in very low birth weight infants. There are unique considerations when applying this mode in small infants. Further research is necessary to confirm whether APRV is a safe and effective ventilation strategy in this population.
| S-EPMC3810052 | biostudies-other