Nasal pressure swings as the measure of inspiratory effort in spontaneously breathing patients with de novo acute respiratory failure

by Roberto Tonelli, Andrea Cortegiani, Alessandro Marchioni, Riccardo Fantini, Luca Tabbì, Ivana Castaniere, Emanuela Biagioni, Stefano Busani, Chiara Nani, Caterina Cerbone, Morgana Vermi, Filippo Gozzi, Giulia Bruzzi, Linda Manicardi, Maria Rosaria Pellegrino, Bianca Beghè… 

Critical Care volume 26, Article number: 70 (2022) Published: 24 March 2022

Background

Excessive inspiratory effort could translate into self-inflicted lung injury, thus worsening clinical outcomes of spontaneously breathing patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Although esophageal manometry is a reliable method to estimate the magnitude of inspiratory effort, procedural issues significantly limit its use in daily clinical practice. The aim of this study is to describe the correlation between esophageal pressure swings (ΔPes) and nasal (ΔPnos) as a potential measure of inspiratory effort in spontaneously breathing patients with de novo ARF.

Methods

From January 1, 2021, to September 1, 2021, 61 consecutive patients with ARF (83.6% related to COVID-19) admitted to the Respiratory Intensive Care Unit (RICU) of the University Hospital of Modena (Italy) and candidate to escalation of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) were enrolled. Clinical features and tidal changes in esophageal and nasal pressure were recorded on admission and 24 h after starting NRS. Correlation between ΔPes and ΔPnos served as primary outcome. The effect of ΔPnos measurements on respiratory rate and ΔPes was also assessed.

Results

ΔPes and ΔPnos were strongly correlated at admission (R2 = 0.88, p < 0.001) and 24 h apart (R2 = 0.94, p < 0.001). The nasal plug insertion and the mouth closure required for ΔPnos measurement did not result in significant change of respiratory rate and ΔPes. The correlation between measures at 24 h remained significant even after splitting the study population according to the type of NRS (high-flow nasal cannulas [R2 = 0.79, p < 0.001] or non-invasive ventilation [R2 = 0.95, p < 0.001]).

Conclusions

In a cohort of patients with ARF, nasal pressure swings did not alter respiratory mechanics in the short term and were highly correlated with esophageal pressure swings during spontaneous tidal breathing. ΔPnos might warrant further investigation as a measure of inspiratory effort in patients with ARF.

 

 

 

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

 

by de Vries, Heder J.; Jonkman, Annemijn H.; de Grooth, Harm J.; Duitman, Jan Willem.; Girbes, Armand R. J.; Ottenheijm, Coen A. C.; Schultz, Marcus J.; van de Ven, Peter M.; Zhang, Yingrui; de Man, Angelique M. E.; Tuinman, Pieter R.; Heunks, Leo M. A. 

 

Critical Care Medicine: February 2022 - Volume 50 - Issue 2 - p 192-203

 

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.