Volume-guaranteed pressure-support ventilation facing acute changes in ventilatory demand

Evidence-Based Management of the Critically Ill Adult With SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Human infection by the novel viral pathogen SARS-CoV-2 results in a clinical syndrome termed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although the majority of COVID-19 cases are self-limiting, a substantial minority of patients develop disease severe enough to require intensive care. Features of critical illness associated with COVID-19 include hypoxemic respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), shock, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). In most (but not all) respects critically ill patients with COVID-19 resemble critically ill patients with ARDS due to other causes and are optimally managed with standard, evidence-based critical care protocols. However, there is naturally an intense interest in developing specific therapies for severe COVID-19. Here we synthesize the rapidly expanding literature around the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and management of COVID-19 with a focus on those points most relevant for intensivists tasked with caring for these patients. We specifically highlight evidence-based approaches that we believe should guide the identification, triage, respiratory support, and general ICU care of critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. In addition, in light of the pressing need and growing enthusiasm for targeted COVID-19 therapies, we review the biological basis, plausibility, and clinical evidence underlying these novel treatment approaches.

Pressure Regulated Volume Control (PRVC): Set it and forget it?

Pressure-regulated volume control (PRVC) is a mode of ventilation in which the ventilator attempts to achieve set tidal volume at lowest possible airway pressure. This mode of ventilation is being commonly used as the initial mode of ventilation in many intensive care units. We describe two cases where this adaptive mode of ventilation became maladaptive leading to patient-ventilator dyssynchrony.

Patient-Ventilator Interactions

Ventilatory muscle fatigue is a reversible loss of the ability to generate force or velocity of contraction in response to increased elastic and resistive loads. Mechanical ventilation should provide support without imposing additional loads from the ventilator (dys-synchrony). Interactive breaths optimize this relationship but require that patient effort and the ventilator response be synchronous during breath initiation, flow delivery, and termination. Proper delivery considers all 3 phases and uses clinical data, ventilator graphics, and sometimes a trial-and-error approach to optimize patient-ventilator interactions. Newer modes optimize interactions but await good clinical outcome data before routine use.

Synchronized mechanical ventilation for respiratory support in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

During synchronised mechanical ventilation, positive airway pressure and spontaneous inspiration coincide. If synchronous ventilation is provoked, adequate gas exchange should be achieved at lower peak airway pressures, potentially reducing baro/volutrauma, air leak and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Synchronous ventilation can potentially be achieved by manipulation of rate and inspiratory time during conventional ventilation and employment of patient-triggered ventilation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of:(i) synchronised mechanical ventilation, delivered as high-frequency positive pressure ventilation (HFPPV) or patient-triggered ventilation (assist control ventilation (ACV) and synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV)), with conventional ventilation or high-frequency oscillation (HFO);(ii) different types of triggered ventilation (ACV, SIMV, pressure-regulated volume control ventilation (PRVCV), SIMV with pressure support (PS) and pressure support ventilation (PSV)).

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to June 5 2016), EMBASE (1980 to June 5 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to June 5 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing synchronised ventilation delivered as HFPPV to CMV, or ACV/SIMV to CMV or HFO in neonates. Randomised trials comparing different triggered ventilation modes (ACV, SIMV, SIMV plus PS, PRVCV and PSV) in neonates.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected regarding clinical outcomes including mortality, air leaks (pneumothorax or pulmonary interstitial emphysema (PIE)), severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grades 3 and 4), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (oxygen dependency beyond 28 days), moderate/severe BPD (oxygen/respiratory support dependency beyond 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) and duration of weaning/ventilation.Eight comparisons were made: (i) HFPPV versus CMV; (ii) ACV/SIMV versus CMV; (iii) SIMV or SIMV + PS versus HFO; iv) ACV versus SIMV; (v) SIMV plus PS versus SIMV; vi) SIMV versus PRVCV; vii) SIMV vs PSV; viii) ACV versus PSV. Data analysis was conducted using relative risk for categorical outcomes, mean difference for outcomes measured on a continuous scale.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies are included in this review. The meta-analysis demonstrates that HFPPV compared to CMV was associated with a reduction in the risk of air leak (typical relative risk (RR) for pneumothorax was 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.93). ACV/SIMV compared to CMV was associated with a shorter duration of ventilation (mean difference (MD) -38.3 hours, 95% CI -53.90 to -22.69). SIMV or SIMV + PS was associated with a greater risk of moderate/severe BPD compared to HFO (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.65) and a longer duration of mechanical ventilation compared to HFO (MD 1.89 days, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.74).ACV compared to SIMV was associated with a trend to a shorter duration of weaning (MD -42.38 hours, 95% CI -94.35 to 9.60). Neither HFPPV nor triggered ventilation was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of BPD. There was a non-significant trend towards a lower mortality rate using HFPPV versus CMV and a non-significant trend towards a higher mortality rate using triggered ventilation versus CMV. No disadvantage of HFPPV or triggered ventilation was noted regarding other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional ventilation, benefit is demonstrated for both HFPPV and triggered ventilation with regard to a reduction in air leak and a shorter duration of ventilation, respectively. In none of the trials was complex respiratory monitoring undertaken and thus it is not possible to conclude that the mechanism of producing those benefits is by provocation of synchronised ventilation. Triggered ventilation in the form of SIMV ± PS resulted in a greater risk of BPD and duration of ventilation compared to HFO. Optimisation of trigger and ventilator design with respect to respiratory diagnosis is encouraged before embarking on further trials. It is essential that newer forms of triggered ventilation are tested in randomised trials that are adequately powered to assess long-term outcomes before they are incorporated into routine clinical practice.

Synchronized mechanical ventilation for respiratory support in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

During synchronised mechanical ventilation, positive airway pressure and spontaneous inspiration coincide. If synchronous ventilation is provoked, adequate gas exchange should be achieved at lower peak airway pressures, potentially reducing baro/volutrauma, air leak and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Synchronous ventilation can potentially be achieved by manipulation of rate and inspiratory time during conventional ventilation and employment of patient-triggered ventilation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of:(i) synchronised mechanical ventilation, delivered as high-frequency positive pressure ventilation (HFPPV) or patient-triggered ventilation (assist control ventilation (ACV) and synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV)), with conventional ventilation or high-frequency oscillation (HFO);(ii) different types of triggered ventilation (ACV, SIMV, pressure-regulated volume control ventilation (PRVCV), SIMV with pressure support (PS) and pressure support ventilation (PSV)).

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to June 5 2016), EMBASE (1980 to June 5 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to June 5 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing synchronised ventilation delivered as HFPPV to CMV, or ACV/SIMV to CMV or HFO in neonates. Randomised trials comparing different triggered ventilation modes (ACV, SIMV, SIMV plus PS, PRVCV and PSV) in neonates.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected regarding clinical outcomes including mortality, air leaks (pneumothorax or pulmonary interstitial emphysema (PIE)), severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grades 3 and 4), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (oxygen dependency beyond 28 days), moderate/severe BPD (oxygen/respiratory support dependency beyond 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) and duration of weaning/ventilation.Eight comparisons were made: (i) HFPPV versus CMV; (ii) ACV/SIMV versus CMV; (iii) SIMV or SIMV + PS versus HFO; iv) ACV versus SIMV; (v) SIMV plus PS versus SIMV; vi) SIMV versus PRVCV; vii) SIMV vs PSV; viii) ACV versus PSV. Data analysis was conducted using relative risk for categorical outcomes, mean difference for outcomes measured on a continuous scale.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies are included in this review. The meta-analysis demonstrates that HFPPV compared to CMV was associated with a reduction in the risk of air leak (typical relative risk (RR) for pneumothorax was 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.93). ACV/SIMV compared to CMV was associated with a shorter duration of ventilation (mean difference (MD) -38.3 hours, 95% CI -53.90 to -22.69). SIMV or SIMV + PS was associated with a greater risk of moderate/severe BPD compared to HFO (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.65) and a longer duration of mechanical ventilation compared to HFO (MD 1.89 days, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.74).ACV compared to SIMV was associated with a trend to a shorter duration of weaning (MD -42.38 hours, 95% CI -94.35 to 9.60). Neither HFPPV nor triggered ventilation was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of BPD. There was a non-significant trend towards a lower mortality rate using HFPPV versus CMV and a non-significant trend towards a higher mortality rate using triggered ventilation versus CMV. No disadvantage of HFPPV or triggered ventilation was noted regarding other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional ventilation, benefit is demonstrated for both HFPPV and triggered ventilation with regard to a reduction in air leak and a shorter duration of ventilation, respectively. In none of the trials was complex respiratory monitoring undertaken and thus it is not possible to conclude that the mechanism of producing those benefits is by provocation of synchronised ventilation. Triggered ventilation in the form of SIMV ± PS resulted in a greater risk of BPD and duration of ventilation compared to HFO. Optimisation of trigger and ventilator design with respect to respiratory diagnosis is encouraged before embarking on further trials. It is essential that newer forms of triggered ventilation are tested in randomised trials that are adequately powered to assess long-term outcomes before they are incorporated into routine clinical practice.

Volume assured versus pressure preset non-invasive ventilation for compensated ventilatory failure in COPD

BACKGROUND

The addition of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation (NIV) to standard therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with compensated ventilatory failure (CVF) is reported to have beneficial effects. Compliance with NIV is an important factor. Volume assured NIV (va-NIV) may improve compliance and ventilation during sleep by automatically titrating ventilatory pressures.

METHODS

A prospective single centre, randomised, parallel group trial comparing va-NIV and pressure preset NIV (pp-NIV) in COPD patients with CVF naïve to domiciliary NIV was performed (ISCRTN91892415). The primary outcomes were arterial blood gases, mean overnight oximetry (mSpO2) and compliance after three months. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, exercise capacity and health-related quality of life assessment.

RESULTS

Forty patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio. The va-NIV median target minute ventilation was 8.4 L/min and pp-NIV median inspiratory pressure was 28 cmH2O. There were no significant differences between groups in primary or secondary outcomes after three months. Mean (SD) PaO2 8.7 (1.7) versus 7.9 (1.7) kPa (p = 0.19), PaCO2 6.7 (0.5) versus 7.3 (1.1) kPa (p = 0.1), mSpO2 89.7 (4.2) versus 89.8 (3.9) % (p = 0.95), compliance 5.0 (3.1) versus 4.7 (3.2) hours (p = 0.8) in va-NIV versus pp-NIV respectively. Patients allocated va-NIV spent fewer days in hospital initiating therapy 3.3 (1.6) versus 5.2 (2.8) (p = 0.02). Both groups showed significant improvements in PaCO2 and mSpO2 after three months treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Domiciliary va-NIV and pp-NIV have similar effects on physiological outcomes in COPD patients with CVF and both are well tolerated.

Patient-ventilator interactions. Implications for clinical management

Assisted/supported modes of mechanical ventilation offer significant advantages over controlled modes in terms of ventilator muscle function/recovery and patient comfort (and sedation needs). However, assisted/supported breaths must interact with patient demands during all three phases of breath delivery: trigger, target, and cycle. Synchronous interactions match ventilator support with patient demands; dyssynchronous interactions do not. Dyssynchrony imposes high pressure loads on ventilator muscles, promoting muscle overload/fatigue and increasing sedation needs. On current modes of ventilation there are a number of features that can monitor and enhance synchrony. These include adjustments of the trigger variable, the use of pressure versus fixed flow targeted breaths, and a number of manipulations of the cycle variable. Clinicians need to know how to use these modalities and monitor them properly, especially understanding airway pressure and flow graphics. Future strategies are emerging that have theoretical appeal but they await good clinical outcome studies before they become commonplace.

Prospective randomized crossover study of a new closed-loop control system versus pressure support during weaning from mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Intellivent is a new full closed-loop controlled ventilation that automatically adjusts both ventilation and oxygenation parameters. The authors compared gas exchange and breathing pattern variability of Intellivent and pressure support ventilation (PSV).

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized, single-blind design crossover study, 14 patients were ventilated during the weaning phase, with Intellivent or PSV, for two periods of 24 h in a randomized order. Arterial blood gases were obtained after 1, 8, 16, and 24 h with each mode. Ventilatory parameters were recorded continuously in a breath-by-breath basis during the two study periods. The primary endpoint was oxygenation, estimated by the calculation of the difference between the PaO2/FIO2 ratio obtained after 24 h of ventilation and the PaO2/FIO2 ratio obtained at baseline in each mode. The variability in the ventilatory parameters was also evaluated by the coefficient of variation (SD to mean ratio).

RESULTS

There were no adverse events or safety issues requiring premature interruption of both modes. The PaO2/FIO2 (mean ± SD) ratio improved significantly from 245 ± 75 at baseline to 294 ± 123 (P = 0.03) after 24 h of Intellivent. The coefficient of variation of inspiratory pressure and positive end-expiratory pressure (median [interquartile range]) were significantly higher with Intellivent, 16 [11-21] and 15 [7-23]%, compared with 6 [5-7] and 7 [5-10]% in PSV. Inspiratory pressure, positive end-expiratory pressure, and FIO2 changes were adjusted significantly more often with Intellivent compared with PSV.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PSV, Intellivent during a 24-h period improved the PaO2/FIO2 ratio in parallel with more variability in the ventilatory support and more changes in ventilation settings.

Pressure modes of invasive mechanical ventilation

Pressure modes of invasive mechanical ventilation generate a tidal breath by delivering pressure over time. Pressure control ventilation (PC) is the prototypical pressure mode and is patient- or time-triggered, pressure-limited, and time-cycled. Other pressure modes include pressure support ventilation (PSV), pressure-regulated volume control (PRVC, also known as volume control plus [VC+]), airway pressure release ventilation (APRV), and biphasic ventilation (also known as BiLevel). Despite their complexity, modern ventilators respond to patient effort and respiratory system mechanics in a fairly predictable fashion. No single mode has consistently demonstrated superiority in clinical trials; however, empiric management with a pressure mode may achieve the goals of patient-ventilator synchrony, effective respiratory system support, adequate gas exchange, and limited ventilator-induced lung injury.

Advanced closed loops during mechanical ventilation (PAV, NAVA, ASV, SmartCare)

New modes of mechanical ventilation with advanced closed loops are now available, and in the future these could assume a greater role in supporting critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) for several reasons. Two modes of ventilation--proportional assist ventilation and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist--deliver assisted ventilation proportional to the patient's effort, improving patient-ventilator synchrony. Also, a few systems that automate the medical reasoning with advanced closed-loops, such as SmartCare and adaptive support ventilation, have the potential to improve knowledge transfer by continuously implementing automated protocols. Moreover, they may improve patient-ventilator interactions and outcomes, and provide a partial solution to the forecast clinician shortages by reducing ICU-related costs, time spent on mechanical ventilation, and staff workload. Preliminary studies are promising, and initial systems are currently being refined with increasing clinical experience. A new era of mechanical ventilation should emerge with these systems.

The effectiveness of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation to enhance preoxygenation in morbidly obese patients: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) with pressure support-ventilation and positive end-expiratory pressure are effective in providing oxygenation during intubation in hypoxemic patients. We hypothesized administration of oxygen (O2) using NPPV would more rapidly increase the end-tidal O2 concentration (ETO2) than preoxygenation using spontaneous ventilation (SV) in morbidly obese patients.

METHODS

Twenty-eight morbidly obese patients were enrolled in this prospective randomized study. Administration of O2 for 5 min was performed either with SV group or with NPPV (pressure support = 8 cm H2O, positive end-expiratory pressure = 6 cm H2O) (NPPV group). ETO2 was measured using the anesthesia breathing circuit, and is expressed as a fraction of atmospheric concentration. The primary end-point was the number of patients with an ETo(2) >95% at the end of O2 administration. Secondary end-points included the time to reach the maximal ETO2 and the ETO2 at the conclusion of O2 administration.

RESULTS

A larger proportion of patients achieved a 95% ETO2 at 5 min with NPPV than SV (13/14 vs 7/14, P = 0.01). The time to reach the maximal ETO2 was significantly less in the NPPV than in the SV group (185 +/- 46 vs 222 +/- 42 s, P = 0.02). The mean ETO2 at the conclusion of O2 administration was larger in the NPPV group than the SV group (96.9 +/- 1.3 vs 94.1 +/- 2.0%, P < 0.001). A modest, although significant, increase in gastric distension was observed in the NPPV group. No adverse effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Administration of O2 via a facemask with NPPV in the operating room is safe, feasible, and efficient in morbidly obese patients. In this population NPPV provides a more rapid O2 administration, achieving a higher ETO2.

Automating the weaning process with advanced closed-loop systems

BACKGROUND

Limiting the duration of invasive ventilation is an important goal in caring for critically ill patients. Several clinical trials have shown that compared to traditional care, protocols can reduce the total duration of mechanical ventilation. Computerized or automated weaning has the potential to improve weaning, while decreasing associated workload, and to transfer best evidence into clinical practice by integrating closed-loop technology into protocols that can be operationalized continuously.

DISCUSSION

In this article, we review the principles of automated systems, discuss automated systems that can be used during weaning, and examine the best-current evidence from randomized trials and observational studies supporting their use. We highlight three commercially available systems (Mandatory Minute Ventilation, Adaptive Support Ventilation and SmartCare) that can be used to automate the weaning process. We note advantages and disadvantages associated with individual weaning systems and differences among them.

CONCLUSIONS

We discuss the potential role for automation in complimenting clinical acumen, reducing practice pattern variation and facilitating knowledge translation into clinical practice, and underscore the need for additional high quality investigations to evaluate automated weaning systems in different practice settings and diverse patient populations.

Synchronized mechanical ventilation for respiratory support in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

During synchronized mechanical ventilation, positive airway pressure and spontaneous inspiration coincide. If synchronous ventilation is provoked, adequate gas exchange should be achieved at lower peak airway pressures, potentially reducing baro/volutrauma, air leak and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Synchronous ventilation can potentially be achieved by manipulation of rate and inspiratory time during conventional ventilation and employment of patient triggered ventilation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of: (i) synchronized mechanical ventilation, delivered as high frequency positive pressure ventilation (HFPPV) or patient triggered ventilation - assist control ventilation (ACV) or synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV)) with conventional ventilation (CMV) (ii) different types of triggered ventilation (ACV, SIMV, pressure regulated volume control ventilation (PRVCV) and SIMV plus pressure support (PS) SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches from 1985-2007 of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007),Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, MEDLINE, previous reviews, abstracts and symposia proceedings; hand searches of journals in the English language and contact with expert informants.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing synchronized ventilation delivered as high frequency positive pressure ventilation (HFPPV) or triggered ventilation (ACV/SIMV) to conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) in neonates. Randomised trials comparing different triggered ventilation modes (ACV, SIMV, SIMV plus PS and PRVCV) in neonates.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data regarding clinical outcomes including mortality, air leaks (pneumothorax or pulmonary interstitial emphysema (PIE)), severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grades 3 and 4), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (oxygen dependency beyond 28 days), moderate/severe BPD (oxygen/respiratory support dependency beyond 36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA) and duration of weaning/ventilation. Four comparisons were made: (i) HFPPV vs. CMV; (ii) ACV/SIMV vs. CMV; (iii) ACV vs. SIMV or PRVCV vs. SIMV (iv) SIMV plus PS vs. SIMV. Data analysis was conducted using relative risk for categorical outcomes, weighted mean difference for outcomes measured on a continuous scale.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies were eligible for inclusion. The meta-analysis demonstrates that HFPPV compared to CMV was associated with a reduction in the risk of air leak (typical relative risk for pneumothorax was 0.69, 95% CI 0.51, 0.93). ACV/SIMV compared to CMV was associated with a shorter duration of ventilation (weighted mean difference -34.8 hours, 95% CI -62.1, -7.4). ACV compared to SIMV was associated with a trend to a shorter duration of weaning (weighted mean difference -42.4 hours, 95% CI -94.4, 9.6). Neither HFPPV nor triggered ventilation was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of BPD. There was a non-significant trend towards a lower mortality rate using HFPPV vs. CMV and a non-significant trend towards a higher mortality rate using triggered ventilation vs. CMV. No disadvantage of HFPPV or triggered ventilation was noted regarding other outcomes. Since the last review, two new patient triggered modes have been included: pressure regulated volume control ventilation (PRVCV) and SIMV plus pressure support. Each of these methods of ventilation has only been tested in single randomised trials with no significant advantages in important outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional ventilation, benefit is demonstrated for both HFPPV and triggered ventilation with regard to a reduction in air leak and a shorter duration of ventilation, respectively. In none of the trials was complex respiratory monitoring undertaken and thus it is not possible to conclude that the mechanism of producing those benefits is by provocation of synchronized ventilation. Further trials are needed to determine whether synchronized ventilation is associated with other benefits, but optimisation of trigger and ventilator design with respect to respiratory diagnosis is encouraged before embarking on further trials. It is essential newer forms of triggered ventilation are tested in adequately powered randomised trials with long-term outcomes before they are incorporated into routine clinical practice.

Automatic selection of breathing pattern using adaptive support ventilation

OBJECTIVE

In a cohort of mechanically ventilated patients to compare the automatic tidal volume (VT)-respiratory rate (RR) combination generated by adaptive support ventilation (ASV) for various lung conditions.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective observational cohort study in the 11-bed medicosurgical ICU of a general hospital.

PATIENTS

243 patients receiving 1327 days of invasive ventilation on ASV.

MEASUREMENTS

Daily collection of ventilator settings, breathing pattern, arterial blood gases, and underlying clinical respiratory conditions categorized as: normal lungs, ALI/ARDS, COPD, chest wall stiffness, or acute respiratory failure.

RESULTS

Overall the respiratory mechanics differed significantly with the underlying conditions. In passive patients ASV delivered different VT-RR combinations based on the underlying condition, providing higher VT and lower RR in COPD than in ALI/ARDS: 9.3ml/kg (8.2-10.8) predicted body weight (PBW) and 13 breaths/min (11-16) vs. 7.6ml/kg (6.7-8.8) PBW and 18 breaths/min (16-22). In patients actively triggering the ventilator the VT-RR combinations did not differ between COPD, ALI/ARDS, and normal lungs.

CONCLUSIONS

ASV selects different VT-RR combinations based on respiratory mechanics in passive, mechanically ventilated patients.