Dataset Information

A novel non-invasive method to detect excessively high respiratory effort and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure during mechanical ventilation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Excessive respiratory muscle effort during mechanical ventilation may cause patient self-inflicted lung injury and load-induced diaphragm myotrauma, but there are no non-invasive methods to reliably detect elevated transpulmonary driving pressure and elevated respiratory muscle effort during assisted ventilation. We hypothesized that the swing in airway pressure generated by respiratory muscle effort under assisted ventilation when the airway is briefly occluded (ΔPocc) could be used as a highly feasible non-invasive technique to screen for these conditions. METHODS:Respiratory muscle pressure (Pmus), dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL,dyn, the difference between peak and end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure), and ΔPocc were measured daily in mechanically ventilated patients in two ICUs in Toronto, Canada. A conversion factor to predict ΔPL,dyn and Pmus from ΔPocc was derived and validated using cross-validation. External validity was assessed in an independent cohort (Nanjing, China). RESULTS:Fifty-two daily recordings were collected in 16 patients. In this sample, Pmus and ΔPL were frequently excessively high: Pmus exceeded 10 cm H2O on 84% of study days and ΔPL,dyn exceeded 15 cm H2O on 53% of study days. ΔPocc measurements accurately detected Pmus > 10 cm H2O (AUROC 0.92, 95% CI 0.83-0.97) and ΔPL,dyn > 15 cm H2O (AUROC 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-0.99). In the external validation cohort (n = 12), estimating Pmus and ΔPL,dyn from ΔPocc measurements detected excessively high Pmus and ΔPL,dyn with similar accuracy (AUROC ≥ 0.94). CONCLUSIONS:Measuring ΔPocc enables accurate non-invasive detection of elevated respiratory muscle pressure and transpulmonary driving pressure. Excessive respiratory effort and transpulmonary driving pressure may be frequent in spontaneously breathing ventilated patients.

SUBMITTER: Bertoni M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6836358 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A novel non-invasive method to detect excessively high respiratory effort and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure during mechanical ventilation.

Bertoni Michele M Telias Irene I Urner Martin M Long Michael M Del Sorbo Lorenzo L Fan Eddy E Sinderby Christer C Beck Jennifer J Liu Ling L Qiu Haibo H Wong Jenna J Slutsky Arthur S AS Ferguson Niall D ND Brochard Laurent J LJ Goligher Ewan C EC

Critical care (London, England) 20191106 1

<h4>Background</h4>Excessive respiratory muscle effort during mechanical ventilation may cause patient self-inflicted lung injury and load-induced diaphragm myotrauma, but there are no non-invasive methods to reliably detect elevated transpulmonary driving pressure and elevated respiratory muscle effort during assisted ventilation. We hypothesized that the swing in airway pressure generated by respiratory muscle effort under assisted ventilation when the airway is briefly occluded (ΔP<sub>occ</s ...[more]

PMID: 31694692

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHigh respiratory drive in mechanically ventilated patients with spontaneous breathing effort may cause excessive lung stress and strain and muscle loading. Therefore, it is important to have a reliable estimate of respiratory effort to guarantee lung and diaphragm protective mechanical ventilation. Recently, a novel non-invasive method was found to detect excessive dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure (∆PL) and respiratory muscle pressure (Pmus) with reasonable accuracy. During the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it was impossible to obtain the gold standard for respiratory effort, esophageal manometry, in every patient. Therefore, we investigated whether this novel non-invasive method could also be applied in COVID-19 patients.Methods∆PL and Pmus were derived from esophageal manometry in COVID-19 patients. In addition, ∆PL and Pmus were computed from the occlusion pressure (∆Pocc) obtained during an expiratory occlusion maneuver. Measured and computed ∆PL and Pmus were compared and discriminative performance for excessive ∆PL and Pmus was assessed. The relation between occlusion pressure and respiratory effort was also assessed.ResultsThirteen patients were included. Patients had a low dynamic lung compliance [24 (20-31) mL/cmH2O], high ∆PL (25 ± 6 cmH2O) and high Pmus (16 ± 7 cmH2O). Low agreement was found between measured and computed ∆PL and Pmus. Excessive ∆PL > 20 cmH2O and Pmus > 15 cmH2O were accurately detected (area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.00], sensitivity 100% (95% CI, 72-100%) and specificity 100% (95% CI, 16-100%) and AUROC 0.98 (95% CI, 0.90-1.00), sensitivity 100% (95% CI, 54-100%) and specificity 86% (95% CI, 42-100%), respectively). Respiratory effort calculated per minute was highly correlated with ∆Pocc (for esophageal pressure time product per minute (PTPes/min) r2 = 0.73; P = 0.0002 and work of breathing (WOB) r2 = 0.85; P < 0.0001).Conclusions∆PL and Pmus can be computed from an expiratory occlusion maneuver and can predict excessive ∆PL and Pmus in patients with COVID-19 with high accuracy.

Project description:IntroductionOptimal ventilator management for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains uncertain. Lower tidal volume ventilation appears to be beneficial, but optimal management of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) remains unclear. The Esophageal Pressure-Guided Ventilation 2 Trial (EPVent2) aims to examine the impact of mechanical ventilation directed at maintaining a positive transpulmonary pressure (PTP) in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.Methods and analysisEPVent2 is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, phase II clinical trial testing the hypothesis that the use of a PTP-guided ventilation strategy will lead to improvement in composite outcomes of mortality and time off the ventilator at 28 days as compared with a high-PEEP control. This study will enrol 200 study participants from 11 hospitals across North America. The trial will utilise a primary composite end point that incorporates death and days off the ventilator at 28 days to test the primary hypothesis that adjusting ventilator pressure to achieve positive PTP values will result in improved mortality and ventilator-free days.Ethics and disseminationSafety oversight will be under the direction of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). Approval of the protocol was obtained from the DSMB prior to enrolling the first study participant. Approvals of the protocol as well as informed consent documents were also obtained from the Institutional Review Board of each participating institution prior to enrolling study participants at each respective site. The findings of this investigation, as well as associated ancillary studies, will be disseminated in the form of oral and abstract presentations at major national and international medical specialty meetings. The primary objective and other significant findings will also be presented in manuscript form. All final, published manuscripts resulting from this protocol will be submitted to PubMed Central in accordance with the National Institute of Health Public Access Policy.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01681225.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest towards the use of helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Gas conditioning through heat and moisture exchangers (HME) or heated humidifiers (HHs) is needed during facemask NIV to provide a minimum level of humidity in the inspired gas (15 mg H2O/L). The optimal gas conditioning strategy during helmet NIV remains to be established.MethodsTwenty patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg) underwent consecutive 1-h periods of helmet NIV (PEEP 12 cmH2O, pressure support 12 cmH2O) with four humidification settings, applied in a random order: double-tube circuit with HHs and temperature set at 34 °C (HH34) and 37 °C (HH37); Y-piece circuit with HME; double-tube circuit with no humidification (NoH). Temperature and humidity of inhaled gas were measured through a capacitive hygrometer. Arterial blood gases, discomfort and dyspnea through visual analog scales (VAS), esophageal pressure swings (ΔPES) and simplified pressure-time product (PTPES), dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL) and asynchrony index were measured in each step.ResultsMedian [IqR] absolute humidity, temperature and VAS discomfort were significantly lower during NoH vs. HME, HH34 and HH37: absolute humidity (mgH2O/L) 16 [12-19] vs. 28 [23-31] vs. 28 [24-31] vs. 33 [29-38], p < 0.001; temperature (°C) 29 [28-30] vs. 30 [29-31] vs. 31 [29-32] vs 32. [31-33], p < 0.001; VAS discomfort 4 [2-6] vs. 6 [2-7] vs. 7 [4-8] vs. 8 [4-10], p = 0.03. VAS discomfort increased with higher absolute humidity (p < 0.01) and temperature (p = 0.007). Higher VAS discomfort was associated with increased VAS dyspnea (p = 0.001). Arterial blood gases, respiratory rate, ΔPES, PTPES and ΔPL were similar in all conditions. Overall asynchrony index was similar in all steps, but autotriggering rate was lower during NoH and HME (p = 0.03).ConclusionsDuring 1-h sessions of helmet NIV in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, a double-tube circuit with no humidification allowed adequate conditioning of inspired gas, optimized comfort and improved patient-ventilator interaction. Use of HHs or HME in this setting resulted in increased discomfort due to excessive heat and humidity in the interface, which was associated with more intense dyspnea. Trail Registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875379) on August 23rd, 2016.

Project description:BackgroundBedside assessment of low levels of inspiratory effort, which are probably insufficient to prevent muscle atrophy, is challenging. The flow index, which is derived from the analysis of the inspiratory portion of the flow-time waveform, has been recently introduced as a non-invasive parameter to evaluate the inspiratory effort. The primary objective of the present study was to provide an external validation of the flow index to detect low inspiratory effort.MethodsDatasets containing flow, airway pressure, and esophageal pressure (Pes)-time waveforms were obtained from a previously published study in 100 acute brain-injured patients undergoing pressure support ventilation. Waveforms data were analyzed offline. A low inspiratory effort was defined by one of the following criteria, work of breathing (WOB) less than 0.3 J/L, Pes-time product (PTPes) per minute less than 50 cmH2O•s/min, or inspiratory muscle pressure (Pmus) less than 5 cmH2O, adding "or occurrence of ineffective effort more than 10%" for all criteria. The flow index was calculated according to previously reported method. The association of flow index with Pes-derived parameters of effort was investigated. The diagnostic accuracy of the flow index to detect low effort was analyzed.ResultsModerate correlations were found between flow index and WOB, Pmus, and PTPes per breath and per minute (Pearson's correlation coefficients ranged from 0.546 to 0.634, P < 0.001). The incidence of low inspiratory effort was 62%, 51%, and 55% using the definition of WOB, PTPes per minute, and Pmus, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for flow index to diagnose low effort was 0.88, 0.81, and 0.88, for the three respective definition. By using the cutoff value of flow index less than 2.1, the diagnostic performance for the three definitions showed sensitivity of 0.95-0.96, specificity of 0.57-0.71, positive predictive value of 0.70-0.84, and negative predictive value of 0.90-0.93.ConclusionsThe flow index is associated with Pes-based inspiratory effort measurements. Flow index can be used as a valid instrument to screen low inspiratory effort with a high probability to exclude cases without the condition.

Project description:ObjectivesAcute respiratory distress syndrome is treated by utilizing a lung protective ventilation strategy. Obesity presents with additional physiologic considerations, and optimizing ventilator settings may be limited with traditional means. Transpulmonary pressure (PL) obtained via esophageal manometry may be more beneficial to titrating positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in this population. We sought to determine the feasibility and impact of implementation of a protocol for use of esophageal balloon to set PEEP in obese patients in a community ICU.DesignRetrospective cohort study of obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/m2) patients undergoing individualized PEEP titration with esophageal manometry. Data were extracted from electronic health record, and Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to determine whether there were differences in the ventilatory parameters over time.SettingIntensive care unit in a community based hospital system in Newark, Delaware.PatientsTwenty-nine mechanically ventilated adult patients with a median BMI of 45.8 kg/m2 with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).InterventionIndividualized titration of PEEP via esophageal catheter obtained transpulmonary pressures.Measurements and main resultsOutcomes measured include PEEP, oxygenation, and driving pressure (DP) before and after esophageal manometry at 4 and 24 hr. Clinical outcomes including adverse events (pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum), increased vasopressor use, rescue therapies (inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and new prone position), continuous renal replacement therapy, and tracheostomy were also analyzed. Four hours after PEEP titration, median PEEP increased from 12 to 20 cm H2O (p < 0.0001) with a corresponding decrease in median DP from 15 to 13 cm H2O (p = 0.002). Subsequently, oxygenation improved as median Fio2 decreased from 0.8 to 0.6 (p < 0.0001), and median oxygen saturation/Fio2 (S/F) ratio improved from 120 to 165 (p < 0.0001). One patient developed pneumomediastinum. No pneumothoraces were identified. Improvements in oxygenation continued to be seen at 24 hr, compared with the prior 4 hr mark, Fio2 (0.6-0.45; p < 0.004), and S/F ratio (165-211.11; p < 0.001). Seven patients required an increase in vasopressor support after 4 hours. Norepinephrine and epinephrine were increased by 0.05 (± 0.04) µg/kg/min and 0.02 (± 0.01) µg/kg/min on average, respectively.ConclusionsPL-guided PEEP titration in obese patients can be used to safely titrate PEEP and decrease DP, resulting in improved oxygenation.

Project description:BackgroundMechanical ventilation is applied to unload the respiratory muscles, but knowledge about transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL) is important to minimize lung injury. We propose a method to estimate ΔPL during neurally synchronized assisted ventilation, with a simple intervention of lowering the assist for one breath ("lower assist maneuver", LAM).MethodsIn 24 rabbits breathing spontaneously with imposed loads, titrations of increasing assist were performed, with two neurally synchronized modes: neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) and neurally triggered pressure support (NPS). Two single LAM breaths (not sequentially, but independently) were performed at each level of assist by acutely setting the assist to zero cm H2O (NPS) or NAVA level 0 cm H2O/uV (NAVA) for one breath. NPS and NAVA titrations were followed by titrations in controlled-modes (volume control, VC and pressure control, PC), under neuro-muscular blockade. Breaths from the NAVA/NPS titrations were matched (for flow and volume) to VC or PC. Throughout all runs, we measured diaphragm electrical activity (Edi) and esophageal pressure (PES). We measured ΔPL during the spontaneous modes (PL_PES) and controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) modes (PL_CMV) with the esophageal balloon. From the LAMs, we derived an estimation of ΔPL ("PL_LAM") using a correction factor (ratio of volume during the LAM and volume during assist) and compared it to measured ΔPL during passive (VC or PC) and spontaneous breathing (NAVA or NPS). A requirement for the LAM was similar Edi to the assisted breath.ResultsAll animals successfully underwent titrations and LAMs for NPS/NAVA. One thousand seven-hundred ninety-two (1792) breaths were matched to passive ventilation titrations (matched Vt, r = 0.99). PL_LAM demonstrated strong correlation with PL_CMV (r = 0.83), and PL_PES (r = 0.77). Bland-Altman analysis revealed little difference between the predicted PL_LAM and measured PL_CMV (Bias = 0.49 cm H2O and 1.96SD = 3.09 cm H2O). For PL_PES, the bias was 2.2 cm H2O and 1.96SD was 3.4 cm H2O. Analysis of Edi and PES at peak Edi showed progressively increasing uncoupling with increasing assist.ConclusionDuring synchronized mechanical ventilation, a LAM breath allows for estimations of transpulmonary driving pressure, without measuring PES, and follows a mathematical transfer function to describe respiratory muscle unloading during synchronized assist.

Dataset Information

A novel non-invasive method to detect excessively high respiratory effort and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure during mechanical ventilation.

Publications

A novel non-invasive method to detect excessively high respiratory effort and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure during mechanical ventilation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets