Dataset Information

Lung- and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation.

ABSTRACT: Mechanical ventilation can cause acute diaphragm atrophy and injury, and this is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Although the importance and impact of lung-protective ventilation is widely appreciated and well established, the concept of diaphragm-protective ventilation has recently emerged as a potential complementary therapeutic strategy. This Perspective, developed from discussions at a meeting of international experts convened by PLUG (the Pleural Pressure Working Group) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, outlines a conceptual framework for an integrated lung- and diaphragm-protective approach to mechanical ventilation on the basis of growing evidence about mechanisms of injury. We propose targets for diaphragm protection based on respiratory effort and patient-ventilator synchrony. The potential for conflict between diaphragm protection and lung protection under certain conditions is discussed; we emphasize that when conflicts arise, lung protection must be prioritized over diaphragm protection. Monitoring respiratory effort is essential to concomitantly protect both the diaphragm and the lung during mechanical ventilation. To implement lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation, new approaches to monitoring, to setting the ventilator, and to titrating sedation will be required. Adjunctive interventions, including extracorporeal life support techniques, phrenic nerve stimulation, and clinical decision-support systems, may also play an important role in selected patients in the future. Evaluating the clinical impact of this new paradigm will be challenging, owing to the complexity of the intervention. The concept of lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation presents a new opportunity to potentially improve clinical outcomes for critically ill patients.

SUBMITTER: Goligher EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7710325 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lung- and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation.

Goligher Ewan C EC Dres Martin M Patel Bhakti K BK Sahetya Sarina K SK Beitler Jeremy R JR Telias Irene I Yoshida Takeshi T Vaporidi Katerina K Grieco Domenico Luca DL Schepens Tom T Grasselli Giacomo G Spadaro Savino S Dianti Jose J Amato Marcelo M Bellani Giacomo G Demoule Alexandre A Fan Eddy E Ferguson Niall D ND Georgopoulos Dimitrios D Guérin Claude C Khemani Robinder G RG Laghi Franco F Mercat Alain A Mojoli Francesco F Ottenheijm Coen A C CAC Jaber Samir S Heunks Leo L Mancebo Jordi J Mauri Tommaso T Pesenti Antonio A Brochard Laurent L

American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 20201001 7

Mechanical ventilation can cause acute diaphragm atrophy and injury, and this is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Although the importance and impact of lung-protective ventilation is widely appreciated and well established, the concept of diaphragm-protective ventilation has recently emerged as a potential complementary therapeutic strategy. This Perspective, developed from discussions at a meeting of international experts convened by PLUG (the Pleural Pressure Working Group) of the Europ ...[more]

PMID: 32516052

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) has been found to minimize the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). However, whether LPV is able to diminish ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction (VIDD) remains unknown. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that LPV protects the diaphragm against VIDD. METHODS:Adult male Wistar rats received either conventional mechanical (tidal volume [VT]: 10 ml/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP]: 2 cm H2O; CV group) or lung-protective (VT: 5 ml/kg, PEEP: 10 cm H2O; LPV group) ventilation for 12 h. Then, diaphragms and lungs were collected for biochemical and histological analyses. Transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq) was performed to determine the differentially expressed genes in the diaphragms between groups. RESULTS:Our results suggested that LPV was associated with diminished pulmonary injuries and reduced oxidative stress compared with the effects of the CV strategy in rats. However, animals that received LPV showed increased protein degradation, decreased cross-sectional areas (CSAs) of myofibers, and reduced forces of the diaphragm compared with the same parameters in animals receiving CV (p < 0.05). In addition, the LPV group showed a higher level of oxidative stress in the diaphragm than the CV group (p < 0.05). Moreover, RNA-seq and western blots revealed that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ coactivator-1alpha (PGC-1α), a powerful reactive oxygen species (ROS) inhibitor, was significantly downregulated in the LPV group compared with its expression in the CV group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with the CV strategy, the LPV strategy did not protect the diaphragm against VIDD in rats. In contrast, the LPV strategy worsened VIDD by inducing oxidative stress together with the downregulation of PGC-1α in the diaphragm. However, further studies are required to determine the roles of PGC-1α in ventilator-induced diaphragmatic oxidative stress.

Project description:ObjectivesLung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation is a novel concept that aims to limit the detrimental effects of mechanical ventilation on the diaphragm while remaining within limits of lung-protective ventilation. The premise is that low breathing effort under mechanical ventilation causes diaphragm atrophy, whereas excessive breathing effort induces diaphragm and lung injury. In a proof-of-concept study, we aimed to assess whether titration of inspiratory support based on diaphragm effort increases the time that patients have effort in a predefined "diaphragm-protective" range, without compromising lung-protective ventilation.DesignRandomized clinical trial.SettingMixed medical-surgical ICU in a tertiary academic hospital in the Netherlands.PatientsPatients (n = 40) with respiratory failure ventilated in a partially-supported mode.InterventionsIn the intervention group, inspiratory support was titrated hourly to obtain transdiaphragmatic pressure swings in the predefined "diaphragm-protective" range (3-12 cm H2O). The control group received standard-of-care.Measurements and main resultsTransdiaphragmatic pressure, transpulmonary pressure, and tidal volume were monitored continuously for 24 hours in both groups. In the intervention group, more breaths were within "diaphragm-protective" range compared with the control group (median 81%; interquartile range [64-86%] vs 35% [16-60%], respectively; p < 0.001). Dynamic transpulmonary pressures (20.5 ± 7.1 vs 18.5 ± 7.0 cm H2O; p = 0.321) and tidal volumes (7.56 ± 1.47 vs 7.54 ± 1.22 mL/kg; p = 0.961) were not different in the intervention and control group, respectively.ConclusionsTitration of inspiratory support based on patient breathing effort greatly increased the time that patients had diaphragm effort in the predefined "diaphragm-protective" range without compromising tidal volumes and transpulmonary pressures. This study provides a strong rationale for further studies powered on patient-centered outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundInsufficient or excessive respiratory effort during acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) increases the risk of lung and diaphragm injury. We sought to establish whether respiratory effort can be optimized to achieve lung- and diaphragm-protective (LDP) targets (esophageal pressure swing - 3 to - 8 cm H2O; dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure ≤ 15 cm H2O) during AHRF.MethodsIn patients with early AHRF, spontaneous breathing was initiated as soon as passive ventilation was not deemed mandatory. Inspiratory pressure, sedation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and sweep gas flow (in patients receiving veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO)) were systematically titrated to achieve LDP targets. Additionally, partial neuromuscular blockade (pNMBA) was administered in patients with refractory excessive respiratory effort.ResultsOf 30 patients enrolled, most had severe AHRF; 16 required VV-ECMO. Respiratory effort was absent in all at enrolment. After initiating spontaneous breathing, most exhibited high respiratory effort and only 6/30 met LDP targets. After titrating ventilation, sedation, and sweep gas flow, LDP targets were achieved in 20/30. LDP targets were more likely to be achieved in patients on VV-ECMO (median OR 10, 95% CrI 2, 81) and at the PEEP level associated with improved dynamic compliance (median OR 33, 95% CrI 5, 898). Administration of pNMBA to patients with refractory excessive effort was well-tolerated and effectively achieved LDP targets.ConclusionRespiratory effort is frequently absent under deep sedation but becomes excessive when spontaneous breathing is permitted in patients with moderate or severe AHRF. Systematically titrating ventilation and sedation can optimize respiratory effort for lung and diaphragm protection in most patients. VV-ECMO can greatly facilitate the delivery of a LDP strategy.Trial registrationThis trial was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov in August 2018 (NCT03612583).

Project description:BackgroundLung and diaphragm ultrasound methods have recently been introduced to predict the outcome of weaning from mechanical ventilation (MV). The aim of this study is to assess the reliability and accuracy of these techniques for predicting successful weaning in critically ill adults.MethodsWe conducted two studies: a cross-sectional interobserver agreement study between two sonographers and a prospective cohort study to assess the accuracy of lung and diaphragm ultrasound for predicting weaning and extubation outcome. For the interobserver agreement study, we included 50 general critical care patients who were consecutively admitted to the ICU. For the predictive accuracy study, we included consecutively 69 patients on MV who were ready for weaning. We assessed interobserver agreement of ultrasound measurements, using the weighted kappa coefficient for LUSm score (modified lung ultrasound score) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman method for TI (diaphragm thickening index). We assessed the predictive value of LUSm and TI in weaning outcome by plotting the corresponding ROC curves.ResultsWe found adequate interobserver agreement for both LUSm (weighted kappa 0.95) and TI (ICC 0.78, difference according to Bland-Altman analysis ± 12.5%). LUSm showed good-moderate discriminative power for successful weaning and extubation (area under the ROC curve (AUC) for successful weaning 0.80, and sensitivity and specificity at optimal cut-off point 0.76 and 0.73, respectively; AUC for successful extubation 0.78, and optimal sensitivity and specificity 0.76 and 0.47, respectively. TI was more sensitive but less specific for predicting successful weaning (AUC 0.71, optimal sensitivity and specificity 0.93 and 0.48) and successful extubation (AUC 0.76, optimal sensitivity and specificity 0.93 and 0.58). The area under the ROC curve for predicting weaning success was 0.83 for both ultrasound measurements together.ConclusionsInterobserver agreement was excellent for LUSm and moderate-good for TI. A low TI value or high LUSm value indicates high risk of weaning failure.

Dataset Information

Lung- and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation.

Publications

Lung- and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets