Prevalence of Reverse Triggering in Early ARDS: Results From a Multicenter Observational Study

Reverse triggering ? a novel or previously missed phenomenon?

BACKGROUND

Reverse triggering (RT) was described in 2013 as a form of patient-ventilator asynchrony, where patient's respiratory effort follows mechanical insufflation. Diagnosis requires esophageal pressure (Pes) or diaphragmatic electrical activity (EAdi), but RT can also be diagnosed using standard ventilator waveforms.

HYPOTHESIS

We wondered (1) how frequently RT would be present but undetected in the figures from literature, especially before 2013; (2) whether it would be more prevalent in the era of small tidal volumes after 2000.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 1950 to 2017, with key words related to asynchrony to identify papers with figures including ventilator waveforms expected to display RT if present. Experts labelled waveforms. 'Definite' RT was identified when Pes or EAdi were in the tracing, and 'possible' RT when only flow and pressure waveforms were present. Expert assessment was compared to the author's descriptions of waveforms.

RESULTS

We found 65 appropriate papers published from 1977 to now, containing 181 ventilator waveforms. 21 cases of 'possible' RT and 25 cases of 'definite' RT were identified by the experts. 18.8% of waveforms prior to 2013 had evidence of RT. Most cases were published after 2000 (1 before vs. 45 after, p = 0.03). 54% of RT cases were attributed to different phenomena. A few cases of identified RT were already described prior to 2013 using different terminology (earliest in 1997). While RT cases attributed to different phenomena decreased after 2013, 60% of 'possible' RT remained missed.

CONCLUSION

RT has been present in the literature as early as 1997, but most cases were found after the introduction of low tidal volume ventilation in 2000. Following 2013, the number of undetected cases decreased, but RT are still commonly missed. Reverse Triggering, A Missed Phenomenon in the Literature. Critical Care Canada Forum 2019 Abstracts. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 67 (Suppl 1), 1-162 (2020). https://doi-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-019-01552-z .

Reverse triggering during mechanical ventilation: Diagnosis and clinical implications

This review addresses the phenomenon of "reverse triggering", an asynchrony that occurs in deeply sedated patients or patients in transition from deep to light sedation. Reverse triggering has been reported to occur in 30-90% of all ventilated patients. The underlying pathophysiological mechanisms remain unclear, but "entrainment" is proposed as one of them. Detecting this asynchrony is crucial, and methods such as visual inspection, esophageal pressure, diaphragmatic ultrasound and automated methods have been used. Reverse triggering may have effects on lung and diaphragm function, probably mediated by the level of breathing effort and eccentric activation of the diaphragm. The optimal management of reverse triggering has not been established, but may include the adjustment of ventilatory parameters as well as of sedation level, and in extreme cases, neuromuscular block. It is important to understand the significance of this condition and its detection, but also to conduct dedicated research to improve its clinical management and potential effects in critically ill patients.

Fundamental concepts and the latest evidence for esophageal pressure monitoring

Transpulmonary pressure is an essential physiologic concept as it reflects the true pressure across the alveoli, and is a more precise marker for lung stress. To calculate transpulmonary pressure, one needs an estimate of both alveolar pressure and pleural pressure. Airway pressure during conditions of no flow is the most widely accepted surrogate for alveolar pressure, while esophageal pressure remains the most widely measured surrogate marker for pleural pressure. This review will cover important concepts and clinical applications for esophageal manometry, with a particular focus on how to use the information from esophageal manometry to adjust or titrate ventilator support. The most widely used method for measuring esophageal pressure uses an esophageal balloon catheter, although these measurements can be affected by the volume of air in the balloon. Therefore, when using balloon catheters, it is important to calibrate the balloon to ensure the most appropriate volume of air, and we discuss several methods which have been proposed for balloon calibration. In addition, esophageal balloon catheters only estimate the pleural pressure over a certain area within the thoracic cavity, which has resulted in a debate regarding how to interpret these measurements. We discuss both direct and elastance-based methods to estimate transpulmonary pressure, and how they may be applied for clinical practice. Finally, we discuss a number of applications for esophageal manometry and review many of the clinical studies published to date which have used esophageal pressure. These include the use of esophageal pressure to assess lung and chest wall compliance individually which can provide individualized information for patients with acute respiratory failure in terms of setting PEEP, or limiting inspiratory pressure. In addition, esophageal pressure has been used to estimate effort of breathing which has application for ventilator weaning, detection of upper airway obstruction after extubation, and detection of patient and mechanical ventilator asynchrony.

Reverse Triggering during Controlled Ventilation: From Physiology to Clinical Management

Reverse triggering dyssynchrony is a frequent phenomenon recently recognized in sedated critically ill patients under controlled ventilation. It occurs in at least 30-55% of these patients and often occurs in the transition from fully passive to assisted mechanical ventilation. During reverse triggering, patient inspiratory efforts start after the passive insufflation by mechanical breaths. The most often referred mechanism is the entrainment of the patient's intrinsic respiratory rhythm from the brainstem respiratory centers to periodic mechanical insufflations from the ventilator. However, reverse triggering might also occur because of local reflexes without involving the respiratory rhythm generator in the brainstem. Reverse triggering is observed during the acute phase of the disease, when patients may be susceptible to potential deleterious consequences of injurious or asynchronous efforts. Diagnosing reverse triggering might be challenging and can easily be missed. Inspection of ventilator waveforms or more sophisticated methods, such as the electrical activity of the diaphragm or esophageal pressure, can be used for diagnosis. The occurrence of reverse triggering might have clinical consequences. On the basis of physiological data, reverse triggering might be beneficial or injurious for the diaphragm and the lung, depending on the magnitude of the inspiratory effort. Reverse triggering can cause breath-stacking and loss of protective lung ventilation when triggering a second cycle. Little is known about how to manage patients with reverse triggering; however, available evidence can guide management on the basis of physiological principles.

Asynchronies during invasive mechanical ventilation: narrative review and update

Invasive mechanical ventilation is a frequent therapy in critically ill patients in critical care units. To achieve favorable outcomes, patient and ventilator interaction must be adequate. However, many clinical situations could attempt against this principle and generate a mismatch between these two actors. These asynchronies can lead the patient to worst outcomes; because of that is vital to recognize and treat these entities as soon as possible. Early detection and recognition of the different asynchronies could favor the reduction of the days of mechanical ventilation, the days of hospital stay, and in intensive care and improve clinical results.

Reverse Triggering: An Introduction to Diagnosis, Management, and Pharmacologic Implications

Reverse triggering is an underdiagnosed form of patient-ventilator asynchrony in which a passive ventilator-delivered breath triggers a neural response resulting in involuntary patient effort and diaphragmatic contraction. Reverse triggering may significantly impact patient outcomes, and the unique physiology underscores critical potential implications for drug-device-patient interactions. The purpose of this review is to summarize what is known of reverse triggering and its pharmacotherapeutic consequences, with a particular focus on describing reported cases, physiology, historical context, epidemiology, and management. The PubMed database was searched for publications that reported patients presenting with reverse triggering. The current body of evidence suggests that deep sedation may predispose patients to episodes of reverse triggering; as such, providers may consider decreasing sedation or modifying ventilator settings in patients exhibiting ventilator asynchrony as an initial measure. Increased clinician awareness and research focus are necessary to understand appropriate management of reverse triggering and its association with patient outcomes.

Impact of Reverse Triggering Dyssynchrony During Lung-Protective Ventilation on Diaphragm Function: An Experimental Model

RATIONALE

Reverse triggering is a patient-ventilator interaction where a respiratory muscle contraction is triggered by a passive mechanical insufflation. Its impact on diaphragm structure and function is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To establish an animal model of reverse triggering with lung injury receiving lung-protective ventilation and to assess its impact on structure and function of the diaphragm.

METHODS

Lung injury was induced by surfactant depletion and high stress ventilation in 32 ventilated pigs. Animals were allocated to receive passive mechanical ventilation or a lung-protective strategy with adjustments facilitating the occurrence of reverse triggering for 3 hours. Diaphragm function (transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi) during phrenic nerve stimulation [Force/frequency curve]) and structure (biopsies) were assessed. The impact of reverse triggering on diaphragm function was analyzed according to the breathing effort.

RESULTS

Compared to passive ventilation, the protective ventilation group with reverse triggering received significantly lower tidal volume (7 vs 10 ml/kg) and higher respiratory rate (45 vs 31 bpm). An entrainment pattern of 1:1 was frequent. Breathing effort induced by reverse triggering was highly variable across animals. Reverse triggering with the lowest tercile of breathing effort was associated with 23% higher twitch Pdi compared to passive ventilation, whereas reverse triggering with high breathing effort was associated with a 10% lower twitch Pdi and a higher proportion of abnormal muscle fibers.

CONCLUSION

In a reproducible animal model of reverse triggering with variable levels of breathing effort and entrainment patterns, reverse triggering with high effort is associated with impaired diaphragm function whereas reverse triggering with low effort is associated with preserved diaphragm force.

High- Versus Low-Dose Dexamethasone for the Treatment of COVID-19-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Multicenter, Randomized Open-Label Clinical Trial

Objective

To determine whether high-dose dexamethasone increases the number of ventilator-free days (VFD) among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19.

Design

Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial.

Participants

Consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19-related ARDS were enrolled from June 17, 2020, to March 27, 2021, in four intensive care units (ICUs) in Argentina

Intervention

16 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for five days followed by 8 mg of dexamethasone daily for five days or 6 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 10 days.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcome was ventilator-free days during the first 28 days. The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 28 and 90 days, infection rate, muscle weakness, and glycemic control in the first 28 days.

Results

Data from 98 patients who received at least one dose of dexamethasone were analyzed. The trial was prematurely terminated due to low enrollment rate. At 28 days after randomization, there was no difference between high- and low-dose dexamethasone groups in VFD (median, 0 [interquartile range [IQR] 0-14] vs. 0 [IQR 0-1] days; P = .231), or in the mean duration of mechanical ventilation (19 ± 18 vs. 25 ± 22 days; P = .078). The cumulative hazard of successful discontinuation from mechanical ventilation was increased by the high-dose treatment (adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.31 to 2.5; P < .001). None of the prespecified secondary and safety outcomes showed a significant difference between treatment arms.

Conclusions

Among patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, the use of higher doses of dexamethasone compared with the recommended low-dose treatment did not show an increase in VFD. However, the higher dose significantly improved the time required to liberate them from the ventilator

Spontaneous Versus Controlled Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Purpose of Review

To review clinical evidence on whether or not to allow mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to breathe spontaneously.

Recent Findings

Observational data (LUNG SAFE study) indicate that mechanical ventilation allowing for spontaneous breathing (SB) is associated with more ventilator-free days and a shorter stay in the intensive care unit without any effect on hospital mortality. A paediatric trial, comparing airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and low-tidal volume ventilation, showed an increase in mortality in the APRV group. Conversely, in an unpublished trial comparing SB and controlled ventilation (NCT01862016), the authors concluded that SB is feasible but did not improve outcomes in ARDS patients.

Summary

A paucity of clinical trial data continues to prevent firm guidance on if or when to allow SB during mechanical ventilation in patients with ARDS. No published large randomised controlled trial exists to inform practice about the benefits and harms of either mode.

Oxygen administration for patients with ARDS

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a fatal condition with insufficiently clarified etiology. Supportive care for severe hypoxemia remains the mainstay of essential interventions for ARDS. In recent years, adequate ventilation to prevent ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) as well as lung-protective mechanical ventilation has an increasing attention in ARDS.

Ventilation-perfusion mismatch may augment severe hypoxemia and inspiratory drive and consequently induce P-SILI. Respiratory drive and effort must also be carefully monitored to prevent P-SILI. Airway occlusion pressure (P_0.1) and airway pressure deflection during an end-expiratory airway occlusion (P_occ) could be easy indicators to evaluate the respiratory drive and effort. Patient-ventilator dyssynchrony is a time mismatching between patient’s effort and ventilator drive. Although it is frequently unrecognized, dyssynchrony can be associated with poor clinical outcomes. Dyssynchrony includes trigger asynchrony, cycling asynchrony, and flow delivery mismatch. Ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction (VIDD) is a form of iatrogenic injury from inadequate use of mechanical ventilation. Excessive spontaneous breathing can lead to P-SILI, while excessive rest can lead to VIDD. Optimal balance between these two manifestations is probably associated with the etiology and severity of the underlying pulmonary disease.

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) are non-invasive techniques for supporting hypoxemia. While they are beneficial as respiratory supports in mild ARDS, there can be a risk of delaying needed intubation. Mechanical ventilation and ECMO are applied for more severe ARDS. However, as with HFNC/NPPV, inappropriate assessment of breathing workload potentially has a risk of delaying the timing of shifting from ventilator to ECMO. Various methods of oxygen administration in ARDS are important. However, it is also important to evaluate whether they adequately reduce the breathing workload and help to improve ARDS.