Distribution of ventilation and perfusion with different modes of mechanical ventilation

Myths and Misconceptions of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation: Getting Past the Noise and on to the Signal

In the pursuit of science, competitive ideas and debate are necessary means to attain knowledge and expose our ignorance. To quote Murray Gell-Mann (1969 Nobel Prize laureate in Physics): "Scientific orthodoxy kills truth". In mechanical ventilation, the goal is to provide the best approach to support patients with respiratory failure until the underlying disease resolves, while minimizing iatrogenic damage. This compromise characterizes the philosophy behind the concept of "lung protective" ventilation. Unfortunately, inadequacies of the current conceptual model-that focuses exclusively on a nominal value of low tidal volume and promotes shrinking of the "baby lung" - is reflected in the high mortality rate of patients with moderate and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. These data call for exploration and investigation of competitive models evaluated thoroughly through a scientific process. Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) is one of the most studied yet controversial modes of mechanical ventilation that shows promise in experimental and clinical data. Over the last 3 decades APRV has evolved from a rescue strategy to a preemptive lung injury prevention approach with potential to stabilize the lung and restore alveolar homogeneity. However, several obstacles have so far impeded the evaluation of APRV's clinical efficacy in large, randomized trials. For instance, there is no universally accepted standardized method of setting APRV and thus, it is not established whether its effects on clinical outcomes are due to the ventilator mode per se or the method applied. In addition, one distinctive issue that hinders proper scientific evaluation of APRV is the ubiquitous presence of myths and misconceptions repeatedly presented in the literature. In this review we discuss some of these misleading notions and present data to advance scientific discourse around the uses and misuses of APRV in the current literature.

Airway pressure release ventilation reduces the increase in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid high-mobility group box-1 levels and lung water in experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome induced by lung lavage

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) may provide better alveolar recruitment at a lower peak airway pressure than conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) and, therefore, decrease the risk of barotrauma in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. The present study compared the effects of APRV with low tidal volume ventilation (LTV) and CMV on the ongoing response in lung injury induced by whole lung lavage.

METHODS

Lung injury was induced by whole lung lavage. Twenty-one Japanese white rabbits were randomized to receive CMV (tidal volume 10 ml kg, positive end-expiratory pressure 3 cmH2O), LTV (tidal volume 6 ml kg, positive end-expiratory pressure 10 cmH2O), or APRV (Phigh 20 cmH2O, Plow 5 cmH2O). After 4 h of treatment, the lungs and heart were excised en bloc. The left lung was lavaged, and high-mobility group box-1 (HMGB1) levels were measured in the lavage. The right lung was analysed histologically and its wet-to-dry weight ratio was calculated.

RESULTS

PaO2 was decreased after the induction of lung injury, but the values were significantly higher in the APRV and LTV groups after treatment than in the CMV group. Serum HMGB1 levels did not change before and after lung injury; however, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid HMGB1 levels were significantly increased at the end of the experiment (266.8 +/- 47.9 in the CMV group, 137.4 +/- 23.4 in the LTV group, and 91.2 +/- 5.4 ng ml in the APRV group). The bronchoalveolar lavage fluid HMGB1 levels after experiment were significantly lower in the APRV group than in the CMV and LTV groups (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0391, respectively). Wet-to-dry weight ratios were also lowest in the APRV group.

CONCLUSION

APRV reduces bronchoalveolar lavage fluid HMGB1 levels and lung water and it preserves oxygenation and systemic blood pressure in experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome. The results suggest that APRV could be as protective for acute respiratory distress syndrome as LTV with positive end-expiratory pressure.

Applications of airway pressure release ventilation

The purpose of this review is to cover the definition and mechanism of airway pressure release ventilation, its advantages, and applications in acute lung injury.

The Effects of Ventilatory Mode on Lung Aeration Assessed With Computer Tomography: A Randomized Controlled Study

Maintenance of spontaneous breathing superimposed on mechanical ventilation is suggested to improve gas exchange in patients with acute lung injury. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term effects of airway pressure release ventilation with maintained unsupported spontaneous breathing (APRV) and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with pressure support (SIMV) on the amount of lung collapse in acute lung injury patients. Thirty-seven patients with acute lung injury were studied in a trial comparing APRV or SIMV. Computer-assisted tomography scannings (CT) were performed before randomization and at day 7. The change in the amount of nonaerated lung was comparable between groups; 14.7% (3.8-17.4) in APRV group (n = 13) and 9.6% (—1.4 to 18.62) in the SIMV group (n = 10), (P = .65, difference in mean 4.9%, 95% confidence interval —9.0% to 19.0%). The effects of APRV and SIMV on lung aeration are similar after 7 days of mechanical ventilation.

Airway pressure release ventilation and biphasic positive airway pressure: a systematic review of definitional criteria

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify the definitional criteria for the pressure-limited and time-cycled modes: airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) available in the published literature.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases (1982-2006) were searched using the following terms: APRV, BIPAP, Bilevel and lung protective strategy, individually and in combination. Two independent reviewers determined the paper eligibility and abstracted data from 50 studies and 18 discussion articles.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Of the 50 studies, 39 (78%) described APRV, and 11 (22%) described BIPAP. Various study designs, populations, or outcome measures were investigated. Compared to BIPAP, APRV was described more frequently as extreme inverse inspiratory:expiratory ratio [18/39 (46%) vs. 0/11 (0%), P = 0.004] and used rarely as a noninverse ratio [2/39 (5%) vs. 3/11 (27%), P = 0.06]. One (9%) BIPAP and eight (21%) APRV studies used mild inverse ratio (>1:1 to < or =2:1) (P = 0.7), plus there was increased use of 1:1 ratio [7 (64%) vs. 12 (31%), P = 0.08] with BIPAP. In adult studies, the mean reported set inspiratory pressure (PHigh) was 6 cm H2O greater with APRV when compared to reports of BIPAP (P = 0.3). For both modes, the mean reported positive end expiratory pressure (PLow) was 5.5 cm H2O. Thematic review identified inconsistency of mode descriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambiguity exists in the criteria that distinguish APRV and BIPAP. Commercial ventilator branding may further add to confusion. Generic naming of modes and consistent definitional parameters may improve consistency of patient response for a given mode and assist with clinical implementation.

Airway pressure release and biphasic intermittent positive airway pressure ventilation: are they ready for prime time?

Airway pressure release ventilation and biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation are being used increasingly as alternative strategies to conventional assist control ventilation for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and acute lung injury. By permitting spontaneous breathing throughout the ventilatory cycle, these modes offer several advantages over conventional strategies to improve the pathophysiology in these patients, including gas exchange, cardiovascular function, and reducing or eliminating the need for heavy sedation and paralysis. Whether these surrogate outcomes will translate into better patient outcomes remains to be determined. The purpose of this review is to summarize the rationale behind the use of these ventilatory strategies in ARDS, the clinical experience with the use of these modes, and their future applications in trauma patients.

In support of pressure support

Present generation mechanical ventilators are available with advanced microprocessor-based technology. Greater emphasis is being placed on the patient controlling the ventilator, rather than the physician controlling it. Pressure support ventilation (PSV) is a form of patient-triggered ventilation that supports spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation. It is flow-cycled, allowing the patient to determine the inspiratory time and rate. Each spontaneous breath is terminated when inspiratory flow decelerates to a predefined percentage of peak flow. At present, strict comparisons of the usefulness of PSV with other modalities of synchronized ventilation in newborns remain limited. This article reviews the principles and clinical applications of PSV for newborns who have respiratory failure.

The impact of spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, controlled mechanical ventilation is generally used in the initial phase to ensure adequate alveolar ventilation, arterial oxygenation, and to reduce work of breathing without causing further damage to the lungs. Although introduced as weaning techniques, partial ventilator support modes have become standard techniques for primary mechanical ventilator support. This review evaluates the physiological and clinical effects of persisting spontaneous breathing during ventilator support in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

RECENT FINDINGS

The improvements in pulmonary gas exchange, systemic blood flow and oxygen supply to the tissue which have been observed when spontaneous breathing has been maintained during mechanical ventilation are reflected in the clinical improvement in the patient's condition. Computer tomography observations demonstrated that spontaneous breathing improves gas exchange by redistribution of ventilation and end-expiratory gas to dependent, juxtadiaphragmatic lung regions and thereby promotes alveolar recruitment. Thus, spontaneous breathing during ventilator support counters the undesirable cyclic alveolar collapse in dependent lung regions. In addition, spontaneous breathing during ventilator support may prevent increase in sedation beyond a level of comfort to adapt the patient to mechanical ventilation which decreases duration of mechanical ventilator support, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and overall costs of care giving.

SUMMARY

In view of the recently available data, it can be concluded that maintained spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation should not be suppressed even in patients with severe pulmonary functional disorders.

Preliminary Experience with Airway Pressure Release Ventilation in a Trauma/Surgical Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Airway pressure-release ventilation (APRV) is a pressure-limited, time-cycled mode of mechanical ventilation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our initial experience with the use of APRV in acutely injured, ventilated patients.

METHODS

Since March 2003, APRV has been used selectively in adult trauma patients with or at risk for acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome. Data were obtained before and during the 72 hours after switching to APRV. A retrospective analysis of these data was then performed.

RESULTS

Complete data were available on 46 of 60 patients (77%) for the first 72 hours of APRV. Before APRV, the average Pao2/Fio2 ratio was 243 and the average peak airway pressure was 28 cm H2O. Peak airway pressure decreased 19% (p = 0.001), Pao2/Fio2 improved by 23% (p = 0.017) and release tidal volumes improved by 13% (p = 0.020) over the course of the analysis.

CONCLUSION

APRV significantly improved oxygenation by alveolar recruitment and allowed for a reduction in peak airway pressures. This relatively new modality had favorable results and appears to be an effective alternative for lung recruitment in traumatically injured patients at risk for acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation (PeV+) in children

Background:

Biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) (also known as PeV+) is a mode of ventilation with cycling variations between two continuous positive airway pressure levels. In adults this mode of ventilation is effective and is being accepted with a decrease in need for sedatives because of the ability to breathe spontaneously during the entire breathing cycle. We studied the use of BIPAP in infants and children.

Methods:

We randomized 18 patients with respiratory failure for ventilation with either BIPAP (n = 11) or assisted spontaneous breathing (ASB) (n = 7) on Evita 4. Lorazepam and, if necessary, morphine were used as sedatives and adjusted in accordance with the Comfort scale. We compared number of randomized mode failure, duration and complications of ventilation and number and dosages of sedatives administered.

Results:

No differences in patient characteristics, ventilatory parameters, complications of ventilation or use of sedatives were noted. Ten out of eleven patients that we intended to ventilate with BIPAP were successfully ventilated with BIPAP. Four out of seven patients that we intended to ventilate with ASB could not be ventilated adequately with ASB but were successfully crossed over to BIPAP without the need for further sedatives.

Conclusions:

BIPAP is an effective, safe and easy to use mode of ventilation in infants and children.

Airway pressure release ventilation: theory and practice

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a relatively new mode of ventilation, that only became commercially available in the United States in the mid-1990s. Airway pressure release ventilation produces tidal ventilation using a method that differs from any other mode. It uses a release of airway pressure from an elevated baseline to simulate expiration. The elevated baseline facilitates oxygenation, and the timed releases aid in carbon dioxide removal. Advantages of APRV include lower airway pressures, lower minute ventilation, minimal adverse effects on cardio-circulatory function, ability to spontaneously breathe throughout the entire ventilatory cycle, decreased sedation use, and near elimination of neuromuscular blockade. Airway pressure release ventilation is consistent with lung protection strategies that strive to limit lung injury associated with mechanical ventilation. Future research will probably support the use of APRV as the primary mode of choice for patients with acute lung injury.

Spontaneous breathing during ventilatory support improves ventilation-perfusion distributions in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Ventilation-perfusion (V A/Q) distributions were evaluated in 24 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), during airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) with and without spontaneous breathing, or during pressure support ventilation (PSV). Whereas PSV provides mechanical assistance of each inspiration, APRV allows unrestricted spontaneous breathing throughout the mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned to receive APRV and PSV with equal airway pressure limits (Paw) (n = 12) or minute ventilation (V E) (n = 12). In both groups spontaneous breathing during APRV was associated with increases (p < 0.05) in right ventricular end-diastolic volume, stroke volume, cardiac index (CI), PaO2, oxygen delivery, and mixed venous oxygen tension (PvO2) and with reductions (p < 0.05) in pulmonary vascular resistance and oxygen extraction. PSV did not consistently improve CI and PaO2 when compared with APRV without spontaneous breathing. Improved V A/Q matching during spontaneous breathing with APRV was evidenced by decreases in intrapulmonary shunt (equal Paw: 33 +/- 4 to 24 +/- 4%; equal V E: 32 +/- 4 to 25 +/- 2%) (p < 0.05), dead space (equal Paw: 44 +/- 9 to 38 +/- 6%; equal V E: 44 +/- 9 to 38 +/- 6%) (p < 0.05), and the dispersions of ventilation (equal Paw: 0.96 +/- 0.23 to 0.78 +/- 0.22; equal V E: 0.92 +/- 0.23 to 0.79 +/- 0.22) (p < 0.05), and pulmonary blood flow distribution (equal Paw: 0.89 +/- 0.12 to 0.72 +/- 0.10; equal V E: 0.94 +/- 0.19 to 0.78 +/- 0.22) (p < 0.05). PSV did not improve V A/Q distributions when compared with APRV without spontaneous breathing. These findings indicate that uncoupling of spontaneous and mechanical ventilation during APRV improves V A/Q matching in ARDS presumably by recruiting nonventilated lung units. Apparently, mechanical assistance of each inspiration during PSV is not sufficient to counteract the V A/Q maldistribution caused by alveolar collapse in patients with ARDS.

Right ventricular function during weaning from respirator after coronary artery bypass grafting. Comparison of two different weaning techniques

The purpose of this investigation was to determine right ventricular function during weaning from controlled ventilation comparing a biphasic positive airway pressure ventilatory support system (BiPAP [Respironics]) with pressure support ventilation (PSV). In 22 patients following coronary artery bypass grafting, both weaning techniques were used in randomized chronological order for 60 min each. Right ventricular end-systolic (RVESV) and end-diastolic volume (RVEDV) and ejection fraction (RVEF) were evaluated using the fast-response Swan-Ganz catheter. In comparison to PSV, the BiPAP system resulted in a significantly higher mean pulmonary artery pressure (20.6 +/- 5.0 vs 19.3 +/- 4.2 mm Hg, p = 0.0158), pulmonary vascular resistance index (206 +/- 55 vs 181 +/- 61 dyn.s.cm-5.m2, p = 0.0355), RVESV (92.2 +/- 36.3 vs 77.2 +/- 30.4 ml, p = 0.0017), and RVEDV (176.4 +/- 48.5 vs 161.8 +/- 43.3 ml, p = 0.0061), while the RVEF was significantly lower (46.0 +/- 11.9 vs 51.8 +/- 12.4 percent, p = 0.0012). No differences in left ventricular function or arterial blood gas analyses were measured during both study periods. In summary, the RV afterload was higher with the BiPAP system compared with PSV which suggested that this was due to differences in the respiratory support between both weaning modes. Because of the Frank-Starling mechanism, this higher afterload did cause a small but significant increase in RV volumes and a significant decrease in RV ejection fraction with the BiPAP system.