A simple method of mechanical power calculation: using mean airway pressure to replace plateau pressure

Mean airway pressure as a parameter of lung-protective and heart-protective ventilation

Mean airway pressure (MAP) is the mean pressure generated in the airway during a single breath (inspiration + expiration), and is displayed on most anaesthesia and intensive care ventilators. This parameter, however, is not usually monitored during mechanical ventilation because it is poorly understood and usually only used in research. One of the main determinants of MAP is PEEP. This is because in respiratory cycles with an I:E ratio of 1:2, expiration is twice as long as inspiration. Although MAP can be used as a surrogate for mean alveolar pressure, these parameters differ considerably in some situations. Recently, MAP has been shown to be a useful prognostic factor for respiratory morbidity and mortality in mechanically ventilated patients of various ages. Low MAP has been associated with a lower incidence of 90-day mortality, shorter ICU stay, and shorter mechanical ventilation time. MAP also affects haemodynamics: there is evidence of a causal relationship between high MAP and low perfusion index, both of which are associated with poor prognosis in mechanically ventilated patients. Elevated MAP values have also been associated with high central venous pressure and lactate, which are indicative of ventilator-associated right ventricular failure and tissue hypoperfusion, respectively. MAP, therefore, is an important parameter to measure in clinical practice. The aim of this review has been to identify the determinants of MAP, the pros and cons of using MAP instead of traditional protective ventilation parameters, and the evidence that supports the use of MAP in clinical practice.

Comprehensive study of mechanical power in controlled mechanical ventilation: Prevalence of elevated mechanical power and component analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of elevated mechanical power (MP) values (>17J/min) used in routine clinical practice.

DESIGN

Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, analytical, multicenter, international study conducted on November 21, 2019, from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM. NCT03936231.

SETTING

One hundred thirty-three Critical Care Units.

PATIENTS

Patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for any cause.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Mechanical power.

RESULTS

A population of 372 patients was analyzed. PM was significantly higher in patients under pressure-controlled ventilation (PC) compared to volume-controlled ventilation (VC) (19.20±8.44J/min vs. 16.01±6.88J/min; p<0.001), but the percentage of patients with PM>17J/min was not different (41% vs. 35%, respectively; p=0.382). The best models according to AICcw expressing PM for patients in VC are described as follows: Surrogate Strain (Driving Pressure) + PEEP+Surrogate Strain Rate (PEEP/Flow Ratio) + Respiratory Rate. For patients in PC, it is defined as: Surrogate Strain (Expiratory Tidal Volume/PEEP) + PEEP+Surrogate Strain Rate (Surrogate Strain/Ti) + Respiratory Rate+Expiratory Tidal Volume+Ti.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of mechanically ventilated patients may be at risk of experiencing elevated levels of mechanical power. Despite observed differences in mechanical power values between VC and PC ventilation, they did not result in a significant disparity in the prevalence of high mechanical power values.

The effect of inspiratory rise time on mechanical power calculations in pressure control ventilation: dynamic approach

BACKGROUND

Mechanical power may serve as a valuable parameter for predicting ventilation-induced injury in mechanically ventilated patients. Over time, several equations have been developed to calculate power in both volume control ventilation (VCV) and pressure control ventilation (PCV). Among these equations, the linear model mechanical power equation (MPLM) closely approximates the reference method when applied in PCV. The dynamic mechanical power equation (MPdyn) computes power by utilizing the ventilatory work of breathing parameter (WOBv), which is automatically measured by the mechanical ventilator. In our study, conducted in patients with Covid-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (C-ARDS), we calculated mechanical power using both the MPLM and MPdyn equations, employing different inspiratory rise times (Tslope) at intervals of 5%, ranging from 5 to 20% and compared the obtained results.

RESULTS

In our analysis, we used univariate linear regression at both I:E ratios of 1:2 and 1:1, considering all Tslope values. These analyses revealed that the MPdyn and MPLM equations exhibited strong correlations, with R2 values exceeding 0.96. Furthermore, our Bland-Altman analysis, which compared the power values derived from the MPdyn and MPLM equations for patient averages and all measurements, revealed a mean difference of -0.42 ± 0.41 J/min (equivalent to 2.6% ± 2.3%, p < 0.0001) and -0.39 ± 0.57 J/min (equivalent to 3.6% ± 3.5%, p < 0.0001), respectively. While there was a statistically significant difference between the equations in both absolute value and relative proportion, this difference was not considered clinically relevant. Additionally, we observed that each 5% increase in Tslope time corresponded to a decrease in mechanical power values by approximately 1 J/min.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences between mechanical power values calculated using the MPdyn and MPLM equations at various Tslope durations were determined to lack clinical significance. Consequently, for practical and continuous mechanical power estimation in Pressure-Controlled Ventilation (PCV) mode, the MPdyn equation presents itself as a viable option. It is important to note that as Tslope times increased, the calculated mechanical power exhibited a clinically relevant decrease.

Accuracy of calculating mechanical power of ventilation by one commonly used equation

Gattinoni's equation, [Formula: see text], now commonly used to calculate the mechanical power (MP) of ventilation. However, it calculates only inspiratory MP. In addition, the inclusion of PEEP in Gattinoni's equation raises debate because PEEP does not produce net displacement or contribute to MP. Measuring the area within the pressure-volume loop accurately reflects the MP received in a whole ventilation cycle and the MP thus obtained is not influenced by PEEP. The MP of 25 invasively ventilated patients were calculated by Gattinoni's equation and measured by integration of the areas within the pressure-volume loops of the ventilation cycles. The MP obtained from both methods were compared. The effects of PEEPs on MP were also evaluated. We found that the MP obtained from both methods were correlated by R² = 0.75 and 0.66 at PEEP 5 and 10 cmH₂O, respectively. The biases of the two methods were 3.13 (2.03 to 4.23) J/min (P < 0.0001) and - 1.23 (- 2.22 to - 0.24) J/min (P = 0.02) at PEEP 5 and 10 cmH₂O, respectively. These P values suggested that both methods were significantly incongruent. When the tidal volume used was 6 ml/Kg, the MP by Gattinoni's equation at PEEP 5 and 10 cmH₂O were significantly different (4.51 vs 7.21 J/min, P < 0.001), but the MP by PV loop area was not influenced by PEEPs (6.46 vs 6.47 J/min, P = 0.331). Similar results were observed across all tidal volumes. We conclude that the Gattinoni's equation is not accurate in calculating the MP of a whole ventilatory cycle and is significantly influenced by PEEP, which theoretically does not contribute to MP.

Associations of dynamic driving pressure and mechanical power with postoperative pulmonary complications-posthoc analysis of two randomised clinical trials in open abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

While an association of the intraoperative driving pressure with postoperative pulmonary complications has been described before, it is uncertain whether the intraoperative mechanical power is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications.

METHODS

Posthoc analysis of two international, multicentre randomised clinical trials (ISRCTN70332574 and NCT02148692) conducted between 2011-2013 and 2014-2018, in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery comparing the effect of two different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels on postoperative pulmonary complications. Time-weighted average dynamic driving pressure and mechanical power were calculated for individual patients. A multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for confounders was used to assess the independent associations of driving pressure and mechanical power with the occurrence of a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications, the primary endpoint of this posthoc analysis.

FINDINGS

In 1191 patients included, postoperative pulmonary complications occurrence was 35.9%. Median time-weighted average driving pressure and mechanical power were 14·0 [11·0-17·0] cmH₂O, and 7·6 [5·1-10·0] J/min, respectively. While driving pressure was not independently associated with postoperative pulmonary complications (odds ratio, 1·06 [95% CI 0·88-1·28]; p=0.534), the mechanical power had an independent association with the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications (odds ratio, 1·28 [95% CI 1·05-1·57]; p=0.016). These findings were independent of body mass index or the level of PEEP used, i.e., independent of the randomisation arm.

INTERPRETATION

In this merged cohort of surgery patients, higher intraoperative mechanical power was independently associated with postoperative pulmonary complications. Mechanical power could serve as a summary ventilatory biomarker for the risk for postoperative pulmonary complications in these patients, but our findings need confirmation in other, preferably prospective studies.

FUNDING

The two original studies were supported by unrestricted grants from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC. For this current analysis, no additional funding was requested. The funding sources had neither a role in the design, collection of data, statistical analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, nor in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Management of Intraoperative Mechanical Ventilation to Prevent Postoperative Complications after General Anesthesia: A Narrative Review

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is still necessary in many surgical procedures; nonetheless, intraoperative MV is not free from harmful effects. Protective ventilation strategies, which include the combination of low tidal volume and adequate positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels, are usually adopted to minimize the ventilation-induced lung injury and to avoid post-operative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Even so, volutrauma and atelectrauma may co-exist at different levels of tidal volume and PEEP, and therefore, the physiological response to the MV settings should be monitored in each patient. A personalized perioperative approach is gaining relevance in the field of intraoperative MV; in particular, many efforts have been made to individualize PEEP, giving more emphasis on physiological and functional status to the whole body. In this review, we summarized the latest findings about the optimization of PEEP and intraoperative MV in different surgical settings. Starting from a physiological point of view, we described how to approach the individualized MV and monitor the effects of MV on lung function.