Pulmonary flow resistance

Driving pressure and mechanical power: new targets for VILI prevention

Several factors have been recognized as possible triggers of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). The first is pressure (thus the 'barotrauma'), then the volume (hence the 'volutrauma'), finally the cyclic opening-closing of the lung units ('atelectrauma'). Less attention has been paid to the respiratory rate and the flow, although both theoretical considerations and experimental evidence attribute them a significant role in the generation of VILI. The initial injury to the lung parenchyma is necessarily mechanical and it could manifest as an unphysiological distortion of the extracellular matrix and/or as micro-fractures in the hyaluronan, likely the most fragile polymer embedded in the matrix. The order of magnitude of the energy required to break a molecular bond between the hyaluronan and the associated protein is 1.12×10^-16 Joules (J), 70-90% higher than the average energy delivered by a single breath of 1L assuming a lung elastance of 10 cmH₂O/L (0.5 J). With a normal statistical distribution of the bond strength some polymers will be exposed each cycle to an energy large enough to rupture. Both the extracellular matrix distortion and the polymer fractures lead to inflammatory increase of capillary permeability with edema if a pulmonary blood flow is sufficient. The mediation analysis of higher vs. lower tidal volume and PEEP studies suggests that the driving pressure, more than tidal volume, is the best predictor of VILI, as inferred by increased mortality. This is not surprising, as both tidal volume and respiratory system elastance (resulting in driving pressure) may independently contribute to the mortality. For the same elastance driving pressure is a predictor similar to plateau pressure or tidal volume. Driving pressure is one of the components of the mechanical power, which also includes respiratory rate, flow and PEEP. Finding the threshold for mechanical power would greatly simplify assessment and prevention of VILI.

Relationship between expired capnogram and respiratory system resistance in critically ill patients during total ventilatory support

To examine the relationship of expired capnograms and respiratory system resistance (Rrs) in intubated critically ill patients, we consecutively studied 41 mechanically ventilated patients to (1) analyze the association between expired CO2 slope and auto-positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP), between Rrs and auto-PEEP, between Rrs and expired CO2 slope, and between Rrs and arterial minus end-tidal PCO2 gradient (PaCO2-PETCO2 gradient) and (2) to investigate the capacity of the expired CO2 slope and PaCO2-PETCO2 gradient to predict Rrs during mechanical ventilation. Regression analysis found a close correlation between Rrs and expired CO2 slope (r = 0.86; p < 0.001), between Rrs and auto-PEEP (r = 0.75; p < 0.001), and between auto-PEEP and expired CO2 slope (r = 0.74; p < 0.001). Weak correlation was found between Rrs and PaCO2-PETCO2 gradient (r = 0.48; p < 0.01). Prediction interval limits at 95 percent confidence level for Rrs are approximately +/- 7.39 cm H2O/L/s from the predicted value obtained by the regression equation, where Rrs = 11.42 + 2.28 expired CO2 slope. These observations suggest that CO2 elimination in critically ill patients is strongly modulated by lung, airway, endotracheal tube, and ventilator equipment resistances. Although continuous capnogram waveform monitoring at the bedside might be useful to assess Rrs, very accurate predictions could be done only in determinate patients.

Maneuver-free determination of compliance and resistance in ventilated ARDS patients

At present, most methods of lung mechanics analysis do not take nonlinearities of compliance and resistance into account. Nevertheless, nonlinearity of compliance is an inherent property of the respiratory system in ARDS and nonlinearity of resistance is an inherent property of the endotracheal tube. Herein we describe a computer-assisted multipoint method (LOOP) for breath-by-breath calculation of total respiratory system compliance (Ctrs) and total respiratory system resistance (Rtrs). Unlike our previously published method, LOOP excludes nonlinearities of compliance and resistance by confining the data used from the P/V/V loop to sequences with constant flow in inspiration and with steadily decreasing flow in expiration. LOOP was applied to five patients ventilated after open heart surgery (HEART group) and 12 patients ventilated for ARDS (ARDS group). The compliance results from LOOP were compared with the semistatic reference values corrected for intrinsic PEEP (CsST,IP). In the ARDS patients the compliance values from LOOP (46 ml/mbar) corresponded well with the semistatic compliance (CsST,IP = 42 ml/mbar). Despite the fact that there is no reference method for resistance known to date, we also determined the semistatic resistance (RsST) at end-inspiratory pause. The resistance values determined with LOOP were 8.5 mbar/L/s (RsST = 7.3 mbar/L/s) in the HEART group and 11.1 mbar/L/s (RsST = 8.6 mbar/L/s) in the ARDS group. LOOP gives a good correspondence between the linear RC model and the measured data in ARDS patients. In conclusion, LOOP requires neither an end-inspiratory pause (EIP) nor additional determination of intrinsic PEEP and gives Ctrs, automatically corrected for IPEEP, as well as Rtrs breath by breath at the bedside.