Trabajo y patrón respiratorio con diferentes niveles de ventilación asistida proporcional

New modes of assisted mechanical ventilation

Recent major advances in mechanical ventilation have resulted in new exciting modes of assisted ventilation. Compared to traditional ventilation modes such as assisted-controlled ventilation or pressure support ventilation, these new modes offer a number of physiological advantages derived from the improved patient control over the ventilator. By implementing advanced closed-loop control systems and using information on lung mechanics, respiratory muscle function and respiratory drive, these modes are specifically designed to improve patient-ventilator synchrony and reduce the work of breathing. Depending on their specific operational characteristics, these modes can assist spontaneous breathing efforts synchronically in time and magnitude, adapt to changing patient demands, implement automated weaning protocols, and introduce a more physiological variability in the breathing pattern. Clinicians have now the possibility to individualize and optimize ventilatory assistance during the complex transition from fully controlled to spontaneous assisted ventilation. The growing evidence of the physiological and clinical benefits of these new modes is favoring their progressive introduction into clinical practice. Future clinical trials should improve our understanding of these modes and help determine whether the claimed benefits result in better outcomes.

[Pressure support ventilation and proportional assist ventilation during weaning from mechanical ventilation]

OBJECTIVES

To compare tolerance, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) and clinical outcomes during weaning from MV in patients subjected to either pressure support ventilation (PSV) or proportional assist ventilation (PAV).

DESIGN

A prospective, observational study was carried out.

SETTING

Intensive Care Unit.

PATIENTS

A total of 40 consecutive subjects were allocated to either the PSV or the PAV group until each group contained 20 patients. Patients were included in the study when they met the criteria to begin weaning and the attending physician decided to initiate the weaning process. The physician selected the modality and set the ventilatory parameters.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Demographic data, respiratory mechanics, ventilatory parameters, duration of MV, and clinical outcomes (reintubation, tracheostomy, mortality).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. No significant differences were observed between the PSV and PAV groups in terms of the total duration of MV (10 [5-18] vs. 9 [7-19] days; P=.85), reintubation (5 [31%] vs. 3 [19%]; P=.69), or mortality (4 [20%] vs. 5 [25%] deaths; P=1). Eight patients (40%) in the PSV group and 6 patients (30%) in the PAV group (P=.74) required a return to volume assist-control ventilation due to clinical deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

Tolerance, duration of MV and clinical outcomes during weaning from mechanical ventilation were similar in PSV and PAV.

Clinical factors associated with success of proportional assist ventilation in the acute phase of critical illness: pilot study

REASON

Proportional assist ventilation plus (PAV+) applies pressure depending on the patient's inspiratory effort, automatically adjusting flow and volume assist to changes in respiratory mechanics. We aimed to assess the clinical factors associated with the success of PAV+ as first-line support in the acute phase of critical illness.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was carried out. Mechanically ventilated patients>24h were switched from assist-control ventilation to PAV+ as soon as they regained spontaneous breathing activity. PAV+ was set to deliver the highest assistance. We compared patients in whom PAV+ succeeded versus those in whom it failed.

RESULTS

PAV+ succeeded in 12 (63%) patients, but failed in 7 (37%) due to tachypnea (n=4), hypercapnia (n=2), and metabolic acidosis (n=1), but without statistical significance. Both groups had similar clinical parameters. On the day of inclusion, total work of breathing per breath was lower in the successful PAV+ group (WOBTOT: 0.95 [0.8-1.35] vs. 1.6 [1.4-1.8] J/L; P<.007). The area under the ROC curve was 0.89 ± 0.08 for WOBTOT. The best cut-off for predicting PAV+ success was WOBTOT<1.4 J/L (sensitivity: 1 [0.7-1], specificity: 0.6 [0.4-0.6], PPV: 0.7 [0.5-0.7], and NPV: 1 [0.6-1]).

CONCLUSION

PAV+ proved feasible as first-line ventilatory support in 63% of the patients, mostly in individuals without extreme derangements in WOBTOT. Tachypnea and hypercapnia were the clinical factors associated with failure, though statistical significance was not reached.