Acute effects of hyperoxemia on dyspnoea and respiratory variables during pressure support ventilation

Monitoring and modulating respiratory drive in mechanically ventilated patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Respiratory drive is frequently deranged in the ICU, being associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Monitoring and modulating respiratory drive to prevent potentially injurious consequences merits attention. This review gives a general overview of the available monitoring tools and interventions to modulate drive.

RECENT FINDINGS

Airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) is an excellent measure of drive and is displayed on ventilators. Respiratory drive can also be estimated based on the electrical activity of respiratory muscles and measures of respiratory effort; however, high respiratory drive might be present in the context of low effort with neuromuscular weakness. Modulating a deranged drive requires a multifaceted intervention, prioritizing treatment of the underlying cause and adjusting ventilator settings for comfort. Additional tools include changes in PEEP, peak inspiratory flow, fraction of inspired oxygen, and sweep gas flow (in patients receiving extracorporeal life-support). Sedatives and opioids have differential effects on drive according to drug category. Monitoring response to any intervention is warranted and modulating drive should not preclude readiness to wean assessment or delay ventilation liberation.

SUMMARY

Monitoring and modulating respiratory drive are feasible based on physiological principles presented in this review. However, evidence arising from clinical trials will help determine precise thresholds and optimal interventions.

High Airway Occlusion Pressure Is Associated with Dyspnea and Increased Mortality in Critically Ill Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Rationale: Airway occlusion pressure at 100 ms (P0.1) reflects central respiratory drive. Objectives: We aimed to assess factors associated with P0.1 and whether an abnormally low or high P0.1 value is associated with higher mortality and longer duration of mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study conducted in 10 ICUs in France to evaluate dyspnea in communicative MV patients. In patients intubated for more than 24 hours, P0.1 was measured with dyspnea as soon as patients could communicate and the next day. Measurements and Main Results: Among 260 patients assessed after a median time of ventilation of 4 days, P0.1 was 1.9 (1-3.5) cm H2O at enrollment, 24% had P0.1 values >3.5 cm H2O, 37% had P0.1 values between 1.5 and 3.5 cm H2O, and 39% had P0.1 values <1.5 cm H2O. In multivariable linear regression, independent factors associated with P0.1 were the presence of dyspnea (P = 0.037), respiratory rate (P < 0.001), and PaO2 (P = 0.008). Ninety-day mortality was 33% in patients with P0.1 > 3.5 cm H2O versus 19% in those with P0.1 between 1.5 and 3.5 cm H2O and 17% in those with P0.1 < 1.5 cm H2O (P = 0.046). After adjustment for the main risk factors, P0.1 was associated with 90-day mortality (hazard ratio per 1 cm H2O, 1.19 [95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.37]; P = 0.011). P0.1 was also independently associated with a longer duration of MV (hazard ratio per 1 cm H2O, 1.10 [95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.19]; P = 0.016). Conclusions: In patients receiving invasive MV, abnormally high P0.1 values may suggest dyspnea and are associated with higher mortality and prolonged duration of MV.

Impact of extended lung protection during mechanical ventilation on lung recovery in patients with COVID-19 ARDS: a phase II randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Protective ventilation seems crucial during early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), but the optimal duration of lung protection remains undefined. High driving pressures (ΔP) and excessive patient ventilatory drive may hinder lung recovery, resulting in self-inflicted lung injury. The hidden nature of the ΔP generated by patient effort complicates the situation further. Our study aimed to assess the feasibility of an extended lung protection strategy that includes a stepwise protocol to control the patient ventilatory drive, assessing its impact on lung recovery.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center randomized study on patients with moderate/severe COVID-19-ARDS with low respiratory system compliance (CRS < 0.6 (mL/Kg)/cmH2O). The intervention group received a ventilation strategy guided by Electrical Impedance Tomography aimed at minimizing ΔP and patient ventilatory drive. The control group received the ARDSNet low-PEEP strategy. The primary outcome was the modified lung injury score (mLIS), a composite measure that integrated daily measurements of CRS, along with oxygen requirements, oxygenation, and X-rays up to day 28. The mLIS score was also hierarchically adjusted for survival and extubation rates.

RESULTS

The study ended prematurely after three consecutive months without patient enrollment, attributed to the pandemic subsiding. The intention-to-treat analysis included 76 patients, with 37 randomized to the intervention group. The average mLIS score up to 28 days was not different between groups (P = 0.95, primary outcome). However, the intervention group showed a faster improvement in the mLIS (1.4 vs. 7.2 days to reach 63% of maximum improvement; P < 0.001), driven by oxygenation and sustained improvement of X-ray (P = 0.001). The intervention group demonstrated a sustained increase in CRS up to day 28 (P = 0.009) and also experienced a shorter time from randomization to room-air breathing (P = 0.02). Survival at 28 days and time until liberation from the ventilator were not different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of an individualized PEEP strategy alongside extended lung protection appears viable. Promising secondary outcomes suggested a faster lung recovery, endorsing further examination of this strategy in a larger trial. Clinical trial registration This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT04497454) on August 04, 2020.

Respiratory drive: a journey from health to disease

Respiratory drive is defined as the intensity of respiratory centers output during the breath and is primarily affected by cortical and chemical feedback mechanisms. During the involuntary act of breathing, chemical feedback, primarily mediated through CO2, is the main determinant of respiratory drive. Respiratory drive travels through neural pathways to respiratory muscles, which execute the breathing process and generate inspiratory flow (inspiratory flow-generation pathway). In a healthy state, inspiratory flow-generation pathway is intact, and thus respiratory drive is satisfied by the rate of volume increase, expressed by mean inspiratory flow, which in turn determines tidal volume. In this review, we will explain the pathophysiology of altered respiratory drive by analyzing the respiratory centers response to arterial partial pressure of CO2 (PaCO2) changes. Both high and low respiratory drive have been associated with several adverse effects in critically ill patients. Hence, it is crucial to understand what alters the respiratory drive. Changes in respiratory drive can be explained by simultaneously considering the (1) ventilatory demands, as dictated by respiratory centers activity to CO2 (brain curve); (2) actual ventilatory response to CO2 (ventilation curve); and (3) metabolic hyperbola. During critical illness, multiple mechanisms affect the brain and ventilation curves, as well as metabolic hyperbola, leading to considerable alterations in respiratory drive. In critically ill patients the inspiratory flow-generation pathway is invariably compromised at various levels. Consequently, mean inspiratory flow and tidal volume do not correspond to respiratory drive, and at a given PaCO2, the actual ventilation is less than ventilatory demands, creating a dissociation between brain and ventilation curves. Since the metabolic hyperbola is one of the two variables that determine PaCO2 (the other being the ventilation curve), its upward or downward movements increase or decrease respiratory drive, respectively. Mechanical ventilation indirectly influences respiratory drive by modifying PaCO2 levels through alterations in various parameters of the ventilation curve and metabolic hyperbola. Understanding the diverse factors that modulate respiratory drive at the bedside could enhance clinical assessment and the management of both the patient and the ventilator.

Dyspnoea in acutely ill mechanically ventilated adult patients: an ERS/ESICM statement

This statement outlines a review of the literature and current practice concerning the prevalence, clinical significance, diagnosis and management of dyspnoea in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patients. It covers the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, short- and middle-term impact, detection and quantification, and prevention and treatment of dyspnoea. It represents a collaboration of the European Respiratory Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Dyspnoea ranks among the most distressing experiences that human beings can endure. Approximately 40% of patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) report dyspnoea, with an average intensity of 45 mm on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100 mm. Although it shares many similarities with pain, dyspnoea can be far worse than pain in that it summons a primal fear response. As such, it merits universal and specific consideration. Dyspnoea must be identified, prevented and relieved in every patient. In the ICU, mechanically ventilated patients are at high risk of experiencing breathing difficulties because of their physiological status and, in some instances, because of mechanical ventilation itself. At the same time, mechanically ventilated patients have barriers to signalling their distress. Addressing this major clinical challenge mandates teaching and training, and involves ICU caregivers and patients. This is even more important because, as opposed to pain which has become a universal healthcare concern, very little attention has been paid to the identification and management of respiratory suffering in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

Dyspnoea in acutely ill mechanically ventilated adult patients: an ERS/ESICM statement

This statement outlines a review of the literature and current practice concerning the prevalence, clinical significance, diagnosis and management of dyspnoea in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patients. It covers the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, short- and middle-term impact, detection and quantification, and prevention and treatment of dyspnoea. It represents a collaboration of the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). Dyspnoea ranks among the most distressing experiences that human beings can endure. Approximately 40% of patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) report dyspnoea, with an average intensity of 45 mm on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100 mm. Although it shares many similarities with pain, dyspnoea can be far worse than pain in that it summons a primal fear response. As such, it merits universal and specific consideration. Dyspnoea must be identified, prevented and relieved in every patient. In the ICU, mechanically ventilated patients are at high risk of experiencing breathing difficulties because of their physiological status and, in some instances, because of mechanical ventilation itself. At the same time, mechanically ventilated patients have barriers to signalling their distress. Addressing this major clinical challenge mandates teaching and training, and involves ICU caregivers and patients. This is even more important because, as opposed to pain which has become a universal healthcare concern, very little attention has been paid to the identification and management of respiratory suffering in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

Sensory interventions to relieve dyspnoea in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients

BACKGROUND

In critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation, dyspnoea is frequent, severe and associated with an increased risk of neuropsychological sequelae. We evaluated the efficacy of sensory interventions targeting the brain rather than the respiratory system to relieve dyspnoea in mechanically ventilated patients.

METHODS

Patients receiving mechanical ventilation for ≥48 h and reporting dyspnoea (unidimensional dyspnoea visual analogue scale (Dyspnoea-VAS)) first underwent increased pressure support and then, in random order, auditory stimulation (relaxing music versus pink noise) and air flux stimulation (facial versus lower limb). Treatment responses were assessed using Dyspnoea-VAS, the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile and measures of the neural drive to breathe (airway occlusion pressure (P 0.1) and electromyography of inspiratory muscles).

RESULTS

We included 46 patients (tracheotomy or intubation n=37; noninvasive ventilation n=9). Increasing pressure support decreased Dyspnoea-VAS by median 40 mm (p<0.001). Exposure to music decreased Dyspnoea-VAS compared with exposure to pink noise by median 40 mm (p<0.001). Exposure to facial air flux decreased Dyspnoea-VAS compared with limb air flux by median 30 mm (p<0.001). Increasing pressure support, but not music exposure and facial air flux, reduced P 0.1 by median 3.3 cmH2O (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In mechanically ventilated patients, sensory interventions can modulate the processing of respiratory signals by the brain irrespective of the intensity of the neural drive to breathe. It should therefore be possible to alleviate dyspnoea without resorting to pharmacological interventions or having to infringe the constraints of mechanical ventilation lung protection strategies by increasing ventilatory support.

Titration and characteristics of pressure-support ventilation use in Argentina: an online cross-sectional survey study

Objective

To identify common practices related to the use and titration of pressure-support ventilation (PC-CSV - pressure control-continuous spontaneous ventilation) in patients under mechanical ventilation and to analyze diagnostic criteria for over-assistance and under-assistance. The secondary objective was to compare the responses provided by physician, physiotherapists and nurses related to diagnostic criteria for over-assistance and under-assistance.

Methods

An online survey was conducted using the Survey Monkey tool. Physicians, nurses and physiotherapists from Argentina with access to PC-CSV in their usual clinical practice were included.

Results

A total of 509 surveys were collected from October to December 2018. Of these, 74.1% were completed by physiotherapists. A total of 77.6% reported using PC-CSV to initiate the partial ventilatory support phase, and 43.8% of respondents select inspiratory pressure support level based on tidal volume. The main objective for selecting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level was to decrease the work of breathing. High tidal volume was the primary variable for detecting over-assistance, while the use of accessory respiratory muscles was the most commonly chosen for under-assistance. Discrepancies were observed between physicians and physiotherapists in relation to the diagnostic criteria for over-assistance.

Conclusion

The most commonly used mode to initiate the partial ventilatory support phase was PC-CSV. The most frequently selected variable to guide the titration of inspiratory pressure support level was tidal volume, and the main objective of PEEP was to decrease the work of breathing. Over-assistance was detected primarily by high tidal volume, while under-assistance by accessory respiratory muscles activation. Discrepancies were observed among professions in relation to the diagnostic criteria for over-assistance, but not for under-assistance.

Respiratory drive in the acute respiratory distress syndrome: pathophysiology, monitoring, and therapeutic interventions

Neural respiratory drive, i.e., the activity of respiratory centres controlling breathing, is an overlooked physiologic variable which affects the pathophysiology and the clinical outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Spontaneous breathing may offer multiple physiologic benefits in these patients, including decreased need for sedation, preserved diaphragm activity and improved cardiovascular function. However, excessive effort to breathe due to high respiratory drive may lead to patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI), even in the absence of mechanical ventilation. In the present review, we focus on the physiological and clinical implications of control of respiratory drive in ARDS patients. We summarize the main determinants of neural respiratory drive and the mechanisms involved in its potentiation, in health and ARDS. We also describe potential and pitfalls of the available bedside methods for drive assessment and explore classical and more “futuristic” interventions to control drive in ARDS patients.