Other bulletins in this series include:

Breast Surgery

Showing posts with label pressure support ventilation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pressure support ventilation. Show all posts

Thursday, 10 February 2022

 

Timing of inspiratory muscle activity detected from airway pressure and flow during pressure support ventilation: the waveform method

 

by Francesco Mojoli, Marco Pozzi, Anita Orlando, Isabella M. Bianchi, Eric Arisi, Giorgio A. Iotti, Antonio Braschi and Laurent Brochard 

 

Critical Care volume 26, Article number: 32 (2022)

 

Background

Whether respiratory efforts and their timing can be reliably detected during pressure support ventilation using standard ventilator waveforms is unclear. This would give the opportunity to assess and improve patient–ventilator interaction without the need of special equipment.

Methods

In 16 patients under invasive pressure support ventilation, flow and pressure waveforms were obtained from proximal sensors and analyzed by three trained physicians and one resident to assess patient’s spontaneous activity. A systematic method (the waveform method) based on explicit rules was adopted. Esophageal pressure tracings were analyzed independently and used as reference. Breaths were classified as assisted or auto-triggered, double-triggered or ineffective. For assisted breaths, trigger delay, early and late cycling (minor asynchronies) were diagnosed. The percentage of breaths with major asynchronies (asynchrony index) and total asynchrony time were computed.

Results

Out of 4426 analyzed breaths, 94.1% (70.4–99.4) were assisted, 0.0% (0.0–0.2) auto-triggered and 5.8% (0.4–29.6) ineffective. Asynchrony index was 5.9% (0.6–29.6). Total asynchrony time represented 22.4% (16.3–30.1) of recording time and was mainly due to minor asynchronies. Applying the waveform method resulted in an inter-operator agreement of 0.99 (0.98–0.99); 99.5% of efforts were detected on waveforms and agreement with the reference in detecting major asynchronies was 0.99 (0.98–0.99). Timing of respiratory efforts was accurately detected on waveforms: AUC for trigger delay, cycling delay and early cycling was 0.865 (0.853–0.876), 0.903 (0.892–0.914) and 0.983 (0.970–0.991), respectively.

Conclusions

Ventilator waveforms can be used alone to reliably assess patient’s spontaneous activity and patient–ventilator interaction provided that a systematic method is adopted.

 

 

 

Wednesday, 5 January 2022

 


Flow Index accurately identifies breaths with low or high inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation

 

by Filippo Albani, Federica Fusina, Gianni Ciabatti, Luigi Pisani, Valeria Lippolis, Maria Elena Franceschetti, Alessia Giovannini, Rossella di Mussi, Francesco Murgolo, Antonio Rosano, Salvatore Grasso and Giuseppe Natalini 

 

Critical Care volume 25, Article number: 427 (2021) Published: 15 December 2021

Background

Flow Index, a numerical expression of the shape of the inspiratory flow-time waveform recorded during pressure support ventilation, is associated with patient inspiratory effort. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of Flow Index in detecting high or low inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation and to establish cutoff values for the Flow index to identify these conditions. The secondary aim was to compare the performance of Flow index,of breathing pattern parameters and of airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) in detecting high or low inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation.

Methods

Data from 24 subjects was included in the analysis, accounting for a total of 702 breaths. Breaths with high inspiratory effort were defined by a pressure developed by inspiratory muscles (Pmusc) greater than 10 cmH2O while breaths with low inspiratory effort were defined by a Pmusc lower than 5 cmH2O. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of Flow Index and respiratory rate, tidal volume,respiratory rate over tidal volume and P0.1 were analyzed and compared to identify breaths with low or high inspiratory effort.

Results

Pmusc, P0.1, Pressure Time Product and Flow Index differed between breaths with high, low and intermediate inspiratory effort, while RR, RR/VT and VT/kg of IBW did not differ in a statistically significant way. A Flow index higher than 4.5 identified breaths with high inspiratory effort [AUC 0.89 (CI 95% 0.85–0.93)], a Flow Index lower than 2.6 identified breaths with low inspiratory effort [AUC 0.80 (CI 95% 0.76–0.83)].

Conclusions

Flow Index is accurate in detecting high and low spontaneous inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation.