Improving oxygenation in a patient with respiratory failure due to morbid obesity by applying airway pressure release ventilation: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Morbidly obese patients occasionally have respiratory problems owing to hypoventilation. Airway pressure release ventilation is one of the ventilation settings often used for respiratory management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, previous reports indicating that airway pressure release ventilation may become a therapeutic measure as ventilator management in morbid obesity with respiratory failure is limited. We report a case of markedly improved oxygenation in a morbidly obese patient after airway pressure release ventilation application.

CASE REPORT

A 50s-year-old Asian man (body mass index 41 kg/m2) presented with breathing difficulties. The patient had respiratory failure with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of approximately 100 and severe atelectasis in the left lung, and ventilator management was initiated. Although the patient was managed on a conventional ventilate mode, oxygenation did not improve. On day 11, we changed the ventilation setting to airway pressure release ventilation, which showed marked improvement in oxygenation with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of approximately 300. We could reduce sedative medication and apply respiratory rehabilitation. The patient was weaned from the ventilator on day 29 and transferred to another hospital for further rehabilitation on day 31.

CONCLUSION

Airway pressure release ventilation ventilator management in morbidly obese patients may contribute to improving oxygenation and become one of the direct therapeutic measures in the early stage of critical care.

Management of primary blast lung injury: a comparison of airway pressure release versus low tidal volume ventilation

BACKGROUND

Primary blast lung injury (PBLI) presents as a syndrome of respiratory distress and haemoptysis resulting from explosive shock wave exposure and is a frequent cause of mortality and morbidity in both military conflicts and terrorist attacks. The optimal mode of mechanical ventilation for managing PBLI is not currently known, and clinical trials in humans are impossible due to the sporadic and violent nature of the disease.

METHODS

A high-fidelity multi-organ computational simulator of PBLI pathophysiology was configured to replicate data from 14 PBLI casualties from the conflict in Afghanistan. Adaptive and responsive ventilatory protocols implementing low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation and airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) were applied to each simulated patient for 24 h, allowing direct quantitative comparison of their effects on gas exchange, ventilatory parameters, haemodynamics, extravascular lung water and indices of ventilator-induced lung injury.

RESULTS

The simulated patients responded well to both ventilation strategies. Post 24-h investigation period, the APRV arm had similar PF ratios (137 mmHg vs 157 mmHg), lower sub-injury threshold levels of mechanical power (11.9 J/min vs 20.7 J/min) and lower levels of extravascular lung water (501 ml vs 600 ml) compared to conventional LTV. Driving pressure was higher in the APRV group (11.9 cmH₂O vs 8.6 cmH₂O), but still significantly less than levels associated with increased mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate use of APRV may offer casualties with PBLI important mortality-related benefits and should be considered for management of this challenging patient group.

Randomized Feasibility Trial of a Low Tidal Volume-Airway Pressure Release Ventilation Protocol Compared With Traditional Airway Pressure Release Ventilation and Volume Control Ventilation Protocols

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

Low tidal volume (= tidal volume ≤ 6 mL/kg, predicted body weight) ventilation using volume control benefits patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway pressure release ventilation is an alternative to low tidal volume-volume control ventilation, but the release breaths generated are variable and can exceed tidal volume breaths of low tidal volume-volume control. We evaluate the application of a low tidal volume-compatible airway pressure release ventilation protocol that manages release volumes on both clinical and feasibility endpoints.

Design:

We designed a prospective randomized trial in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We randomized patients to low tidal volume-volume control, low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation, and traditional airway pressure release ventilation with a planned enrollment of 246 patients. The study was stopped early because of low enrollment and inability to consistently achieve tidal volumes less than 6.5 mL/kg in the low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation arm. Although the primary clinical study endpoint was Pao₂/Fio₂ on study day 3, we highlight the feasibility outcomes related to tidal volumes in both arms.

Setting:

Four Intermountain Healthcare tertiary ICUs.

Patients:

Adult ICU patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Interventions:

Low tidal volume-volume control, airway pressure release ventilation, and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation.

Measurements and Main Results:

We observed wide variability and higher tidal (release for airway pressure release ventilation) volumes in both airway pressure release ventilation (8.6 mL/kg; 95% CI, 7.8–9.6) and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (8.0; 95% CI, 7.3–8.9) than volume control (6.8; 95% CI, 6.2–7.5; p = 0.005) with no difference between airway pressure release ventilation and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (p = 0.58). Recognizing the limitations of small sample size, we observed no difference in 52 patients in day 3 Pao₂/ Fio₂ (p = 0.92). We also observed no significant difference between arms in sedation, vasoactive medications, or occurrence of pneumothorax.

Conclusions:

Airway pressure release ventilation resulted in release volumes often exceeding 12 mL/kg despite a protocol designed to target low tidal volume ventilation. Current airway pressure release ventilation protocols are unable to achieve consistent and reproducible delivery of low tidal volume ventilation goals. A large-scale efficacy trial of low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation is not feasible at this time in the absence of an explicit, generalizable, and reproducible low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation protocol.

The 30-year evolution of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV)

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) was first described in 1987 and defined as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with a brief release while allowing the patient to spontaneously breathe throughout the respiratory cycle. The current understanding of the optimal strategy to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury is to "open the lung and keep it open". APRV should be ideal for this strategy with the prolonged CPAP duration recruiting the lung and the minimal release duration preventing lung collapse. However, APRV is inconsistently defined with significant variation in the settings used in experimental studies and in clinical practice. The goal of this review was to analyze the published literature and determine APRV efficacy as a lung-protective strategy. We reviewed all original articles in which the authors stated that APRV was used. The primary analysis was to correlate APRV settings with physiologic and clinical outcomes. Results showed that there was tremendous variation in settings that were all defined as APRV, particularly CPAP and release phase duration and the parameters used to guide these settings. Thus, it was impossible to assess efficacy of a single strategy since almost none of the APRV settings were identical. Therefore, we divided all APRV studies divided into two basic categories: (1) fixed-setting APRV (F-APRV) in which the release phase is set and left constant; and (2) personalized-APRV (P-APRV) in which the release phase is set based on changes in lung mechanics using the slope of the expiratory flow curve. Results showed that in no study was there a statistically significant worse outcome with APRV, regardless of the settings (F-ARPV or P-APRV). Multiple studies demonstrated that P-APRV stabilizes alveoli and reduces the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in clinically relevant animal models and in trauma patients. In conclusion, over the 30 years since the mode's inception there have been no strict criteria in defining a mechanical breath as being APRV. P-APRV has shown great promise as a highly lung-protective ventilation strategy.