Dataset Information

Lung- and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation by Titrating Inspiratory Support to Diaphragm Effort: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Lung- 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.

Design

Randomized clinical trial.

Setting

Mixed medical-surgical ICU in a tertiary academic hospital in the Netherlands.

Patients

Patients (n = 40) with respiratory failure ventilated in a partially-supported mode.

Interventions

In 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 results

Transdiaphragmatic 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.

Conclusions

Titration 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.

SUBMITTER: de Vries HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8797006 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lung- and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation by Titrating Inspiratory Support to Diaphragm Effort: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

de Vries Heder J HJ Jonkman Annemijn H AH de Grooth Harm J HJ Duitman Jan Willem JW Girbes Armand R J ARJ Ottenheijm Coen A C CAC Schultz Marcus J MJ van de Ven Peter M PM Zhang Yingrui Y de Man Angelique M E AME Tuinman Pieter R PR Heunks Leo M A LMA

Critical care medicine 20220201 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>Lung- 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 diaphra ...[more]

PMID: 35100192

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMonitoring respiratory effort in ventilated patients is important to balance lung and diaphragm protection. Esophageal manometry remains the gold standard for monitoring respiratory effort but is invasive and requires expertise for its measurement and interpretation. Airway pressures during occlusion maneuvers may provide an alternative, although pediatric data are limited. We sought to determine the correlation between change in esophageal pressure during tidal breathing (∆Pes) and airway pressure measured during three airway occlusion maneuvers: (1) expiratory occlusion pressure (Pocc), (2) airway occlusion pressure (P0.1), and (3) respiratory muscle pressure index (PMI) in children. We also sought to explore pediatric threshold values for these pressures to detect excessive or insufficient respiratory effort.MethodsSecondary analysis of physiologic data from children between 1 month and 18 years of age with acute respiratory distress syndrome enrolled in an ongoing randomized clinical trial testing a lung and diaphragm protective ventilation strategy (REDvent, R01HL124666). ∆Pes, Pocc, P0.1, and PMI were measured. Repeated measure correlations were used to investigate correlation coefficients between ∆Pes and the three measures, and linear regression equations were generated to identify potential therapeutic thresholds.ResultsThere were 653 inspiratory and 713 expiratory holds from 97 patients. Pocc had the strongest correlation with ∆Pes (r = 0.68), followed by PMI (r = 0.60) and P0.1 (r = 0.42). ∆Pes could be reliably estimated using the regression equation ∆Pes = 0.66 [Formula: see text] Pocc (R2 = 0.82), with Pocc cut-points having high specificity and moderate sensitivity to detect respective ∆Pes thresholds for high and low respiratory effort. There were minimal differences in the relationship between Pocc and ∆Pes based on age (infant, child, adolescent) or mode of ventilation (SIMV versus Pressure Support), although these differences were more apparent with P0.1 and PMI.ConclusionsAirway occlusion maneuvers may be appropriate alternatives to esophageal pressure measurement to estimate the inspiratory effort in children, and Pocc represents the most promising target.Trial registrationNCT03266016; August 23, 2017.

Project description:BackgroundIn pressure-controlled (PC) ventilation, tidal volume (V T) and transpulmonary pressure (P L ) result from the addition of ventilator pressure and the patient's inspiratory effort. PC modes can be classified into fully, partially, and non-synchronized modes, and the degree of synchronization may result in different V T and P L despite identical ventilator settings. This study assessed the effects of three PC modes on V T, P L , inspiratory effort (esophageal pressure-time product, PTPes), and airway occlusion pressure, P 0.1. We also assessed whether P 0.1 can be used for evaluating patient effort.MethodsProspective, randomized, crossover physiologic study performed in 14 spontaneously breathing mechanically ventilated patients recovering from acute respiratory failure (1 subsequently withdrew). PC modes were fully (PC-CMV), partially (PC-SIMV), and non-synchronized (PC-IMV using airway pressure release ventilation) and were applied randomly; driving pressure, inspiratory time, and set respiratory rate being similar for all modes. Airway, esophageal pressure, P 0.1, airflow, gas exchange, and hemodynamics were recorded.ResultsV T was significantly lower during PC-IMV as compared with PC-SIMV and PC-CMV (387 ± 105 vs 458 ± 134 vs 482 ± 108 mL, respectively; p < 0.05). Maximal P L was also significantly lower (13.3 ± 4.9 vs 15.3 ± 5.7 vs 15.5 ± 5.2 cmH2O, respectively; p < 0.05), but PTPes was significantly higher in PC-IMV (215.6 ± 154.3 vs 150.0 ± 102.4 vs 130.9 ± 101.8 cmH2O × s × min-1, respectively; p < 0.05), with no differences in gas exchange and hemodynamic variables. PTPes increased by more than 15% in 10 patients and by more than 50% in 5 patients. An increased P 0.1 could identify high levels of PTPes.ConclusionsNon-synchronized PC mode lowers V T and P L in comparison with more synchronized modes in spontaneously breathing patients but can increase patient effort and may need specific adjustments. Clinical Trial Registration Clinicaltrial.gov # NCT02071277.

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:BackgroundPressure support ventilation (PSV) is one of the most frequently used ventilator modes in the intensive care unit (ICU). The successful implementation of PSV depends on matching the patient's inspiratory effort with the ventilator support. In clinical practice, the pressure support level is usually set and adjusted according to tidal volume and respiratory rate. However, these parameters may not fully represent the patient's effort. Previous studies have shown that pressure muscle index (PMI), which is measured as the difference between the peak and plateau airway pressure during an end-inspiratory airway occlusion, could reliably determine the low and high inspiratory effort during PSV. Herein we present the study protocol for the Inspiratory effort-Targeted Pressure Support Ventilation (IT-PSV) trial to determine the effect of a PMI-targeted pressure support setting strategy on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PSV.Methods and analysisThis is a cluster randomized controlled trial. Sixteen ICUs in academic hospitals will be included, eight of which will be randomly allocated to the PMI-targeted group and eight to the tidal volume/respiratory rate-targeted group. Before the initiation of the study, a four-week comprehensive training program, which includes courses of PSV initiation, pressure support adjustment, and weaning process, will be conducted for all staff in the participating ICUs. Adult patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and undergoing PSV within 24 h will be included. Pressure support setting and adjustment will follow the strategy according to the grouping. The primary outcome is the ventilator-free days at 28 days after enrollment. The patients will be followed up until successful weaning or separation of mechanical ventilation, death, hospital discharge, or until 28 days after randomization, whichever comes first.DiscussionThe IT-PSV trial will examine the effect of an inspiratory effort-targeted PSV setting strategy on the duration of mechanical ventilation. If positive, it will provide a new physiological-based PSV management that could potentially facilitate protective assisted ventilation.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT06526598.

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.

Dataset Information

Lung- and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation by Titrating Inspiratory Support to Diaphragm Effort: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Patients

Interventions

Measurements and main results

Conclusions

Publications

Lung- and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation by Titrating Inspiratory Support to Diaphragm Effort: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets