Airway pressure release ventilation in children

Perspectives on Current Mechanical Ventilation Use and Training in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Fellowship Programs in the United States

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is an integral part of the care of the critically ill child, and contemporary MV includes a myriad of sophisticated modalities that should be tailored to specific disease pathology and severity. This requires Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) physicians to have comprehensive training and experience with various modes. We sought to assess and describe the current landscape of MV practices and training from PCCM fellowship programs. To describe current MV practices and training in PCCM fellowship programs and assess the different modes of MV to which trainees are exposed, a piloted survey was sent to all 67 American PCCM fellowship program directors (PDs) in 2019. Forty-eight (71.6%) of PCCM PDs responded. Our survey shows that PCCM fellows are not uniformly exposed to the same MV modalities, and PDs' perception of fellows' competency in managing MV is variable. Our results suggest that there is a lack of exposure to the various modes of “conventional” MV, as well as inconsistent education about less-utilized “nonconventional” MV. Additionally, we found that PDs are aware of their fellows' limited exposure to various modalities, as many practice patterns are institution specific. This study identified gaps in MV education and training and advocates for PCCM fellowship programs to identify these deficiencies to equip all trainees with a solid knowledge base that will prepare them to utilize any mode of MV in their future practice.

Airway Pressure Release Ventilation as a Rescue Therapy in Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

To describe experience with airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) in children with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) refractory to conventional low tidal volume ventilation.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study was performed in an 11-bed, level 3 pediatric intensive care unit. Evaluation was made of 30 pediatric patients receiving airway pressure release ventilation as rescue therapy for severe ARDS.

RESULTS

Patients were switched to APRV on an average 3.2 ± 2.6 d following intubation. When changed from conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) to APRV, there was an expected increase in the SpO₂/FiO₂ ratio (165.1 ± 13.6 vs. 131.7 ± 10.2; p = 0.035). Mean peak inspiratory pressure was significantly lower during APRV (25.4 ± 1.26 vs. 29.8 ± 0.60, p < 0.001) compared to CMV prior to APRV but mean airway pressure (P_aw) was significantly higher during APRV (19.1 ± 0.9 vs. 15.3 ± 1.3, p < 0.001). Hospital mortality in this study group was 16.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support the hypothesis that APRV may offer potential clinical advantages for ventilatory management and may be considered as an alternative rescue mechanical ventilation mode in pediatric ARDS patients refractory to conventional ventilation.

A comprehensive review of the use and understanding of airway pressure release ventilation

Introduction: Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a mode of ventilation typically utilized as a rescue or alternative mode for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and hypoxemia that is refractory to conventional mechanical ventilation. APRV's indication and efficacy continue to remain unclear given lack of consensus amongst practitioners, inconsistent methodology for its use, and scarcity of convincing evidence.Areas covered: This review discusses the history of APRV, how APRV works, rationales for its use, and its theoretical advantages and disadvantages. This is followed by a review of current available literature examining APRV's use in the intensive care unit, with further focus on its use in the pediatric intensive care unit.Expert opinion: APRV is a ventilation mode with theoretical risks and benefits. Appropriate study of APRV's clinical efficacy is difficult given a heterogeneous patient population and widely variable use of APRV between centers. Despite a paucity of definitive evidence in support of either mode, it is possible that the use of APRV will begin to outpace the use of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) for the management of refractory hypoxemia as more attention is paid to benefits of spontaneous breathing and minimizing sedation. Furthermore, APRV's role during ECMO deserves further investigation.