Comparison of Mechanical Power During Adaptive Support Ventilation Versus Nonautomated Pressure-Controlled Ventilation-A Pilot Study

Effect of automated versus conventional ventilation on mechanical power of ventilation-A randomized crossover clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical power of ventilation, a summary parameter reflecting the energy transferred from the ventilator to the respiratory system, has associations with outcomes. INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation is an automated ventilation mode that changes ventilator settings according to algorithms that target a low work-and force of breathing. The study aims to compare mechanical power between automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation and conventional ventilation in critically ill patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

International, multicenter, randomized crossover clinical trial in patients that were expected to need invasive ventilation > 24 hours. Patients were randomly assigned to start with a 3-hour period of automated ventilation or conventional ventilation after which the alternate ventilation mode was selected. The primary outcome was mechanical power in passive and active patients; secondary outcomes included key ventilator settings and ventilatory parameters that affect mechanical power.

RESULTS

A total of 96 patients were randomized. Median mechanical power was not different between automated and conventional ventilation (15.8 [11.5-21.0] versus 16.1 [10.9-22.6] J/min; mean difference -0.44 (95%-CI -1.17 to 0.29) J/min; P = 0.24). Subgroup analyses showed that mechanical power was lower with automated ventilation in passive patients, 16.9 [12.5-22.1] versus 19.0 [14.1-25.0] J/min; mean difference -1.76 (95%-CI -2.47 to -10.34J/min; P < 0.01), and not in active patients (14.6 [11.0-20.3] vs 14.1 [10.1-21.3] J/min; mean difference 0.81 (95%-CI -2.13 to 0.49) J/min; P = 0.23).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of unselected critically ill invasively ventilated patients, automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation did not reduce mechanical power. A reduction in mechanical power was only seen in passive patients.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT04827927), April 1, 2021.

URL OF TRIAL REGISTRY RECORD

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04827927?term=intellipower&rank=1.

Evaluation of IntelliVent-ASV® and PS-SIMV Mode Using Ultrasound (US) Measurements in Terms of Diaphragm Atrophy

BACKGROUND

 Mechanical ventilation is a life-saving intervention for critically ill patients, but it can also lead to diaphragm atrophy, which may prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation and the length of stay in the intensive care unit. IntelliVent-ASV® (Hamilton Medical, Rhäzüns, Switzerland) is a new mode of ventilation that has been developed to reduce diaphragm atrophy by promoting spontaneous breathing efforts. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of IntelliVent-ASV® and pressure support-synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (PS-SIMV) mode in reducing diaphragm atrophy by measuring diaphragm thickness using ultrasound (US) imaging.

METHODS

 We enrolled 60 patients who required mechanical ventilation due to respiratory failure and were randomized into two groups: IntelliVent-ASV^® and PS-SIMV. We measured the diaphragm thickness using US imaging at admission and on the seventh day of mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

Our results showed that diaphragm thickness decreased significantly in the PS-SIMV group but remained unchanged in the IntelliVent-ASV^® group. The difference in diaphragm thickness between the two groups was statistically significant on the seventh day of mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

IntelliVent-ASV^® may reduce diaphragm atrophy by promoting spontaneous breathing efforts. Our study suggests that this new mode of ventilation may be a promising approach to preventing diaphragm atrophy in mechanically ventilated patients. Further studies using invasive measures of diaphragm function are warranted to confirm these findings.

Closed-loop ventilation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The last 25 years have seen considerable development in modes of closed-loop ventilation and there are now several of them commercially available. They not only offer potential benefits for the individual patient, but may also improve the organization within the intensive care unit (ICU). Clinicians are showing both greater interest and willingness to address the issues of a caregiver shortage and overload of bedside work in the ICU. This article reviews the clinical benefits of using closed-loop ventilation modes, with a focus on control of oxygenation, lung protection, and weaning.

RECENT FINDINGS

Closed-loop ventilation modes are able to maintain important physiological variables, such as oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry, tidal volume (VT), driving pressure (ΔP), and mechanical power (MP), within target ranges aimed at ensuring continuous lung protection. In addition, these modes adapt the ventilator support to the patient's needs, promoting diaphragm activity and preventing over-assistance. Some studies have shown the potential of these modes to reduce the duration of both weaning and mechanical ventilation.

SUMMARY

Recent studies have primarily demonstrated the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of using closed-loop ventilation modes in the ICU and postsurgery patients. Large, multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to assess their impact on important short- and long-term clinical outcomes, the organization of the ICU, and cost-effectiveness.

Adaptive Support Ventilation and Lung-Protective Ventilation in ARDS

BACKGROUND

Adaptive support ventilation (ASV) is a partially closed-loop ventilation mode that adjusts tidal volume (V_T) and breathing frequency (f) to minimize mechanical work and driving pressure. ASV is routinely used but has not been widely studied in ARDS.

METHODS

The study was a crossover study with randomization to intervention comparing a pressure-regulated, volume-targeted ventilation mode (adaptive pressure ventilation [APV], standard of care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) set to V_T 6 mL/kg in comparison with ASV mode where V_T adjustment is automated. Subjects received standard of care (APV) or ASV and then crossed over to the alternate mode, maintaining consistent minute ventilation with 1-2 h in each mode. The primary outcome was V_T corrected for ideal body weight (IBW) before and after crossover. Secondary outcomes included driving pressure, mechanics, gas exchange, mechanical power, and other parameters measured after crossover and longitudinally.

RESULTS

Twenty subjects with ARDS were consented, with 17 randomized and completing the study (median P_aO2 /F_IO2 146.6 [128.3-204.8] mm Hg) and were mostly passive without spontaneous breathing. ASV mode produced marginally larger V_T corrected for IBW (6.3 [5.9-7.0] mL/kg IBW vs 6.04 [6.0-6.1] mL/kg IBW, P = .035). Frequency was lower with patients in ASV mode (25 [22-26] breaths/min vs 27 [22-30)] breaths/min, P = .01). In ASV, lower respiratory-system compliance correlated with smaller delivered V_T/IBW (R² = 0.4936, P = .002). Plateau (24.7 [22.6-27.6] cm H₂O vs 25.3 [23.5-26.8] cm H₂O, P = .14) and driving pressures (12.8 [9.0-15.8] cm H₂O vs 11.7 [10.7-15.1] cm H₂O, P = .29) were comparable between conventional ventilation and ASV. No adverse events were noted in either ASV or conventional group related to mode of ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

ASV targeted similar settings as standard of care consistent with lung-protective ventilation strategies in mostly passive subjects with ARDS. ASV delivered V_T based upon respiratory mechanics, with lower V_T and mechanical power in subjects with stiffer lungs.

Effect of INTELLiVENT-ASV versus Conventional Ventilation on Ventilation Intensity in Patients with COVID-19 ARDS-An Observational Study

Driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) are associated with outcomes in critically ill patients, irrespective of the presence of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). INTELLiVENT-ASV, a fully automated ventilatory mode, controls the settings that affect ΔP and MP. This study compared the intensity of ventilation (ΔP and MP) with INTELLiVENT-ASV versus conventional ventilation in a cohort of COVID-19 ARDS patients in two intensive care units in the Netherlands. The coprimary endpoints were ΔP and MP before and after converting from conventional ventilation to INTELLiVENT-ASV. Compared to conventional ventilation, INTELLiVENT-ASV delivered ventilation with a lower ΔP and less MP. With conventional ventilation, ΔP was 13 cmH₂O, and MP was 21.5 and 24.8 J/min, whereas with INTELLiVENT-ASV, ΔP was 11 and 10 cmH₂O (mean difference –2 cm H2O (95 %CI –2.5 to –1.2 cm H₂O), p < 0.001) and MP was 18.8 and 17.5 J/min (mean difference –7.3 J/Min (95% CI –8.8 to –5.8 J/min), p < 0.001). Conversion from conventional ventilation to INTELLiVENT-ASV resulted in a lower intensity of ventilation. These findings may favor the use of INTELLiVENT-ASV in COVID-19 ARDS patients, but future studies remain needed to see if the reduction in the intensity of ventilation translates into clinical benefits.