Randomized crossover trial to compare driving pressures in a closed-loop and a conventional mechanical ventilation mode in pediatric patients

Closed-loop ventilation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The last 25 years have seen considerable development in modes of closed-loop ventilation and there are now several of them commercially available. They not only offer potential benefits for the individual patient, but may also improve the organization within the intensive care unit (ICU). Clinicians are showing both greater interest and willingness to address the issues of a caregiver shortage and overload of bedside work in the ICU. This article reviews the clinical benefits of using closed-loop ventilation modes, with a focus on control of oxygenation, lung protection, and weaning.

RECENT FINDINGS

Closed-loop ventilation modes are able to maintain important physiological variables, such as oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry, tidal volume (VT), driving pressure (ΔP), and mechanical power (MP), within target ranges aimed at ensuring continuous lung protection. In addition, these modes adapt the ventilator support to the patient's needs, promoting diaphragm activity and preventing over-assistance. Some studies have shown the potential of these modes to reduce the duration of both weaning and mechanical ventilation.

SUMMARY

Recent studies have primarily demonstrated the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of using closed-loop ventilation modes in the ICU and postsurgery patients. Large, multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to assess their impact on important short- and long-term clinical outcomes, the organization of the ICU, and cost-effectiveness.

Automated closed–loop FiO2 titration increases the percentage of time spent in optimal zones of oxygen saturation in pediatric patients–A randomized crossover clinical trial

Introduction

We aimed to compare automated ventilation with closed–loop control of the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) to automated ventilation with manual titrations of the FiO₂ with respect to time spent in predefined pulse oximetry (SpO₂) zones in pediatric critically ill patients.

Methods

This was a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) 1.1 with use of a closed–loop FiO₂ system vs. ASV 1.1 with manual FiO₂ titrations. The primary endpoint was the percentage of time spent in optimal SpO₂ zones. Secondary endpoints included the percentage of time spent in acceptable, suboptimal and unacceptable SpO₂ zones, and the total number of FiO₂ changes per patient.

Results

We included 30 children with a median age of 21 (11–48) months; 12 (40%) children had pediatric ARDS. The percentage of time spent in optimal SpO₂ zones increased with use of the closed–loop FiO₂ controller vs. manual oxygen control [96.1 (93.7–98.6) vs. 78.4 (51.3–94.8); P < 0.001]. The percentage of time spent in acceptable, suboptimal and unacceptable zones decreased. Findings were similar with the use of closed-loop FiO₂ controller compared to manual titration in patients with ARDS [95.9 (81.6–98.8) vs. 78 (49.5–94.8) %; P = 0.027]. The total number of closed-loop FiO₂ changes per patient was 52 (11.8–67), vs. the number of manual changes 1 (0–2), (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

In this randomized crossover trial in pediatric critically ill patients under invasive ventilation with ASV, use of a closed–loop control of FiO₂ titration increased the percentage of time spent within in optimal SpO₂ zones, and increased the total number of FiO₂ changes per patient.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04568642.