Refractory ineffective triggering during pressure support ventilation: effect of proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors

 

by Anne-Fleur Haudebourg, Tommaso Maraffi, Samuel Tuffet, François Perier, Nicolas de Prost, Keyvan Razazi, Armand Mekontso Dessap and Guillaume Carteaux 

 

Annals of Intensive Care volume 11, Article number: 147 (2021) 

Background

Ineffective triggering is frequent during pressure support ventilation (PSV) and may persist despite ventilator adjustment, leading to refractory asynchrony. We aimed to assess the effect of proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+) on the occurrence of refractory ineffective triggering.

Design

Observational assessment followed by prospective cross-over physiological study.

Setting

Academic medical ICU.

Patients

Ineffective triggering was detected during PSV by a twice-daily inspection of the ventilator’s screen. The impact of pressure support level (PSL) adjustments on the occurrence of asynchrony was recorded. Patients experiencing refractory ineffective triggering, defined as persisting asynchrony at the lowest tolerated PSL, were included in the physiological study.

Interventions

Physiological study: Flow, airway, and esophageal pressures were continuously recorded during 10 min under PSV with the lowest tolerated PSL, and then under PAV+ with the gain adjusted to target a muscle pressure between 5 and 10 cmH2O.

Measurements

Primary endpoint was the comparison of asynchrony index between PSV and PAV+ after PSL and gain adjustments.

Results

Among 36 patients identified having ineffective triggering under PSV, 21 (58%) exhibited refractory ineffective triggering. The lowest tolerated PSL was higher in patients with refractory asynchrony as compared to patients with non-refractory ineffective triggering. Twelve out of the 21 patients with refractory ineffective triggering were included in the physiological study. The median lowest tolerated PSL was 17 cmH2O [12–18] with a PEEP of 7 cmH2O [5–8] and FiO2 of 40% [39–42]. The median gain during PAV+ was 73% [65–80]. The asynchrony index was significantly lower during PAV+ than PSV (2.7% [1.0–5.4] vs. 22.7% [10.3–40.1], p < 0.001) and consistently decreased in every patient with PAV+. Esophageal pressure–time product (PTPes) did not significantly differ between the two modes (107 cmH2O/s/min [79–131] under PSV vs. 149 cmH2O/s/min [129–170] under PAV+, p = 0.092), but the proportion of PTPes lost in ineffective triggering was significantly lower with PAV+ (2 cmH2O/s/min [1–6] vs. 8 cmH2O/s/min [3–30], p = 0.012).

Conclusions

Among patients with ineffective triggering under PSV, PSL adjustment failed to eliminate asynchrony in 58% of them (21 of 36 patients). In these patients with refractory ineffective triggering, switching from PSV to PAV+ significantly reduced or even suppressed the incidence of asynchrony.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist vs. pressure support to deliver protective mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized crossover trial

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist vs. pressure support to deliver protective mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized crossover trial

by Fabia Diniz-Silva, Henrique T. Moriya, Adriano M. Alencar, Marcelo B. P. Amato, Carlos R. R. Carvalho and Juliana C. Ferreira

Annals of Intensive Care volume 10, Article number: 18 (2020)

Background

Protective mechanical ventilation is recommended for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but it usually requires controlled ventilation and sedation. Using neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) or pressure support ventilation (PSV) could have additional benefits, including the use of lower sedative doses, improved patient–ventilator interaction and shortened duration of mechanical ventilation. We designed a pilot study to assess the feasibility of keeping tidal volume (VT) at protective levels with NAVA and PSV in patients with ARDS.

Methods

We conducted a prospective randomized crossover trial in five ICUs from a university hospital in Brazil and included patients with ARDS transitioning from controlled ventilation to partial ventilatory support. NAVA and PSV were applied in random order, for 15 min each, followed by 3 h in NAVA. Flow, peak airway pressure (Paw) and electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) were captured from the ventilator, and a software (Matlab, Mathworks, USA), automatically detected inspiratory efforts and calculated respiratory rate (RR) and VT. Asynchrony events detection was based on waveform analysis.

Results

We randomized 20 patients, but the protocol was interrupted for five (25%) patients for whom we were unable to maintain VT below 6.5 mL/kg in PSV due to strong inspiratory efforts and for one patient for whom we could not detect EAdi signal. For the 14 patients who completed the protocol, VT was 5.8 ± 1.1 mL/kg for NAVA and 5.6 ± 1.0 mL/kg for PSV (p = 0.455) and there were no differences in RR (24 ± 7 for NAVA and 23 ± 7 for PSV, p = 0.661). Paw was greater in NAVA (21 ± 3 cmH2O) than in PSV (19 ± 3 cmH2O, p = 0.001). Most patients were under continuous sedation during the study. NAVA reduced triggering delay compared to PSV (p = 0.020) and the median asynchrony Index was 0.7% (0–2.7) in PSV and 0% (0–2.2) in NAVA (p = 0.6835).

Conclusions

It was feasible to keep VT in protective levels with NAVA and PSV for 75% of the patients. NAVA resulted in similar VT, RR and Paw compared to PSV. Our findings suggest that partial ventilatory assistance with NAVA and PSV is feasible as a protective ventilation strategy in selected ARDS patients under continuous sedation.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01519258). Registered 26 January 2012, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01519258

Neural versus pneumatic control of pressure support in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases at different levels of positive end expiratory pressure: a physiological study

Critical Care 2015, 19:244  doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0971-0

 

Ling Liu et al

http://www.ccforum.com/content/19/1/244/abstract

Intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEPi) is a “threshold” load that must be overcome to trigger conventional pneumatically-controlled pressure support (PSP) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Application of extrinsic PEEP (PEEPe) reduces trigger delays and mechanical inspiratory efforts. Using the diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi), neurally controlled pressure support (PSN) could hypothetically eliminate asynchrony and reduce mechanical inspiratory effort, hence substituting the need for PEEPe. The primary objective of this study was to show that PSN can reduce the need for PEEPe to improve patient-ventilator interaction and to reduce both the “pre-trigger” and “total inspiratory” neural and mechanical efforts in COPD patients with PEEPi. A secondary objective was to evaluate the impact of applying PSN on breathing pattern.