Mechanical ventilation variables associated with high pulmonary artery pressures in ARDS patients: a post hoc analysis

 

by Joseph R. Riddell, Benjamin J. Jones, Bruno M. Fernandes, Daniel J. Law, Jackie A. Cooper and Matt P. Wise 

 

Critical Care volume 26, Article number: 396 (2022)

 

Background

The relationship between indices of mechanical ventilation and pulmonary artery pressures remains ill-defined in ARDS. As our understanding of mechanical ventilation has progressed, there is now a greater appreciation of the impact of high driving pressures and mechanical power in perpetuating lung injury. However, the relationship between the newer derived indices of mechanical ventilation and pulmonary artery pressure is unclear. We performed a post hoc analysis of the Fluid and Catheters Treatment Trial (FACTT) trial to investigate the associations between mechanical ventilation indices in ARDS patients and the prevalence of pulmonary hypertension. This may help elucidate future clinical targets for more, right ventricular protective, mechanical ventilation strategies.

Methods

We performed a post hoc analysis of the FACTT database to identify ARDS patients who had a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) inserted and pulmonary artery pressure readings recorded. We excluded any patient with a PAC inserted who was spontaneously breathing, as driving pressure and mechanical power are not validated in this cohort. Three independent analyses were performed: a univariate analysis, to assess for associations between mPAP and mechanical ventilation parameters using Pearson correlation coefficients, a multivariate analysis, to assess for independent associations with mPAP using a multiple regression model according to Akaike’s information criteria and finally an analysis for nonlinearity, using the best-fitting model according to the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) from linear, quadratic, fractional polynomial and restricted cubic spline models.

Results

All the ventilation parameters demonstrated a significant correlation with mPAP, except tidal volume (once adjusted for respiratory rate) in the univariate analysis. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that the blood pH level, P/F ratio, PaCO2 level, mean airway pressure and the mechanical power indexed to compliance were independently associated with mPAP. In the final nonlinear analysis, associations did not differ from linearity except for 4 variables for which the fractional polynomial was the best-fitting model. These were mechanical power (p = 0.01 compared to the linear model), respiratory rate (p = 0.04), peak pressure (p = 0.03) and mean airway pressure (p = 0.01). Two nonlinear variables associated with mPAP were assessed in more detail, respiratory rate and mechanical power. Inflexion points at a respiratory rate of 16.8 cycles per minute and a mechanical power of 8.8 J/min were demonstrated.

Conclusions

The associations identified between mPAP and mechanical ventilation variables in this analysis would suggest that classical ARDS lung protective strategies, including low tidal volume ventilation and permissive hypercapnia, may negatively impact the management of the subset of ARDS patients with associated right ventricular dysfunction or ACP. Additionally, respiratory rates above 17 cycles per minute show an incremental increase in mPAP. Therefore, increases in tidal volume (within the limitation of driving pressure < 18 cmH20) may represent a more right ventricular protective way to control CO2 and pH.