Adaptive mechanical ventilation with automated minimization of mechanical power-a pilot randomized cross-over study

Understanding ventilator-induced lung injury: The role of mechanical power

Mechanical ventilation stands as a life-saving intervention in the management of respiratory failure. However, it carries the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury. Despite the adoption of lung-protective ventilation strategies, including lower tidal volumes and pressure limitations, mortality rates remain high, leaving room for innovative approaches. The concept of mechanical power has emerged as a comprehensive metric encompassing key ventilator parameters associated with the genesis of ventilator-induced lung injury, including volume, pressure, flow, resistance, and respiratory rate. While numerous animal and human studies have linked mechanical power and ventilator-induced lung injury, its practical implementation at the bedside is hindered by calculation challenges, lack of equation consensus, and the absence of an optimal threshold. To overcome the constraints of measuring static respiratory parameters, dynamic mechanical power is proposed for all patients, regardless of their ventilation mode. However, establishing a causal relationship is crucial for its potential implementation, and requires further research. The objective of this review is to explore the role of mechanical power in ventilator-induced lung injury, its association with patient outcomes, and the challenges and potential benefits of implementing a ventilation strategy based on mechanical power.

Personalized ventilation adjustment in ARDS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of image, driving pressure, transpulmonary pressure, and mechanical power

BACKGROUND

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) necessitates personalized treatment strategies due to its heterogeneity, aiming to mitigate Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury (VILI). Advanced monitoring techniques, including imaging, driving pressure, transpulmonary pressure, and mechanical power, present potential avenues for tailored interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To review some of the most important techniques for achieving greater personalization of mechanical ventilation in ARDS patients as evaluated in randomized clinical trials, by analyzing their effect on three clinically relevant aspects: mortality, ventilator-free days, and gas exchange.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) involving adult ARDS patients undergoing personalized ventilation adjustments. Outcomes were mortality (primary end-point), ventilator-free days, and oxygenation improvement.

RESULTS

Among 493 identified studies, 13 RCTs (n = 1255) met inclusion criteria. No personalized ventilation strategy demonstrated superior outcomes compared to traditional protocols. Meta-analysis revealed no significant reduction in mortality with image-guided (RR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.70-1.11), driving pressure-guided (RR 0.61, 95 % CI 0.29-1.30), or transpulmonary pressure-guided (RR 0.85, 95 % CI 0.58-1.24) strategies. Ventilator-free days and oxygenation outcomes showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Our study does not support the superiority of personalized ventilation techniques over traditional protocols in ARDS patients. Further research is needed to standardize ventilation strategies and determine their impact on mechanical ventilation outcomes.

Association of Mechanical Energy and Power with Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Lung Resection Surgery: A Post Hoc Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trial Data

BACKGROUND

Mechanical power (MP), the rate of mechanical energy (ME) delivery, is a recently introduced unifying ventilator parameter consisting of tidal volume, airway pressures, and respiratory rates, which predicts pulmonary complications in several clinical contexts. However, ME has not been previously studied in the perioperative context, and neither parameter has been studied in the context of thoracic surgery utilizing one-lung ventilation.

METHODS

The relationships between ME variables and postoperative pulmonary complications were evaluated in this post hoc analysis of data from a multicenter randomized clinical trial of lung resection surgery conducted between 2020 and 2021 (n = 1,170). Time-weighted average MP and ME (the area under the MP time curve) were obtained for individual patients. The primary analysis was the association of time-weighted average MP and ME with pulmonary complications within 7 postoperative days. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the relationships between energy variables and the primary outcome.

RESULTS

In 1,055 patients analyzed, pulmonary complications occurred in 41% (431 of 1,055). The median (interquartile ranges) ME and time-weighted average MP in patients who developed postoperative pulmonary complications versus those who did not were 1,146 (811 to 1,530) J versus 924 (730 to 1,240) J (P < 0.001), and 6.9 (5.5 to 8.7) J/min versus 6.7 (5.2 to 8.5) J/min (P = 0.091), respectively. ME was independently associated with postoperative pulmonary complications (ORadjusted, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.80]; P = 0.001). However, the association between time-weighted average MP and postoperative pulmonary complications was time-dependent, and time-weighted average MP was significantly associated with postoperative pulmonary complications in cases utilizing longer periods of mechanical ventilation (210 min or greater; ORadjusted, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.93]; P = 0.007). Normalization of ME and time-weighted average MP either to predicted body weight or to respiratory system compliance did not alter these associations.

CONCLUSIONS

ME and, in cases requiring longer periods of mechanical ventilation, MP were independently associated with postoperative pulmonary complications in thoracic surgery.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Six methods to determine expiratory time constants in mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective observational physiology study

BACKGROUND

Expiratory time constant (τ) objectively assesses the speed of exhalation and can guide adjustments of the respiratory rate and the I:E ratio with the goal of achieving complete exhalation. Multiple methods of obtaining τ are available, but they have not been compared. The purpose of this study was to compare six different methods to obtain τ and to test if the exponentially decaying flow corresponds to the measured time constants.

METHODS

In this prospective study, pressure, flow, and volume waveforms of 30 postoperative patients undergoing volume (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) were obtained using a data acquisition device and analyzed. τ was measured as the first 63% of the exhaled tidal volume (VT) and compared to the calculated τ as the product of expiratory resistance (RE) and respiratory system compliance (CRS), or τ derived from passive flow/volume waveforms using previously published equations as proposed by Aerts, Brunner, Guttmann, and Lourens. We tested if the duration of exponentially decaying flow during exhalation corresponded to the duration of the predicted second and third τ, based on multiples of the first measured τ.

RESULTS

Mean (95% CI) measured τ was 0.59 (0.57-0.62) s and 0.60 (0.58-0.63) s for PCV and VCV (p = 0.45), respectively. Aerts method showed the shortest values of all methods for both modes: 0.57 (0.54-0.59) s for PCV and 0.58 (0.55-0.61) s for VCV. Calculated (CRS * RE) and Brunner's τ were identical with mean τ of 0.64 (0.61-0.67) s for PCV and 0.66 (0.63-069) s for VCV. Mean Guttmann's τ was 0.64 (0.61-0.68) in PCV and 0.65 (0.62-0.69) in VCV. Comparison of each τ method between PCV and VCV was not significant. Predicted time to exhale 95% of the VT (i.e., 3*τ) was 1.77 (1.70-1.84) s for PCV and 1.80 (1.73-1.88) s for VCV, which was significantly longer than measured values: 1.27 (1.22-1.32) for PCV and 1.30 (1.25-1.35) s for VCV (p < 0.0001). The first, the second and the third measured τ were progressively shorter: 0.6, 0.4 and 0.3 s, in both ventilation modes (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

All six methods to determine τ show similar values and are feasible in postoperative mechanically ventilated patients in both PCV and VCV modes.

Visualizing the dynamic mechanical power and time burden of mechanical ventilation patients: an analysis of the MIMIC-IV database

BACKGROUND

Limiting driving pressure and mechanical power is associated with reduced mortality risk in both patients with and without acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it is still poorly understood how the intensity of mechanical ventilation and its corresponding duration impact the risk of mortality.

METHODS

Critically ill patients who received mechanical ventilation were identified from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database. A visualization method was developed by calculating the odds ratio of survival for all combinations of ventilation duration and intensity to assess the relationship between the intensity and duration of mechanical ventilation and the mortality risk.

RESULTS

A total of 6251 patients were included. The color-coded plot demonstrates the intuitive concept that episodes of higher dynamic mechanical power can only be tolerated for shorter durations. The three fitting contour lines represent 0%, 10%, and 20% increments in the mortality risk, respectively, and exhibit an exponential pattern: higher dynamic mechanical power is associated with an increased mortality risk with shorter exposure durations.

CONCLUSIONS

Cumulative exposure to higher intensities and/or longer duration of mechanical ventilation is associated with worse outcomes. Considering both the intensity and duration of mechanical ventilation may help evaluate patient outcomes and guide adjustments in mechanical ventilation to minimize harmful exposure.

The Impact of Mechanical Energy Assessment on Mechanical Ventilation: A Comprehensive Review and Practical Application

Mechanical ventilation (MV) provides basic organ support for patients who have acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, with acute respiratory distress syndrome as the most severe form. The use of excessive ventilation forces can exacerbate the lung condition and lead to ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI); mechanical energy (ME) or power can characterize such forces applied during MV. The ME metric combines all MV parameters affecting the respiratory system (ie, lungs, chest, and airways) into a single value. Besides evaluating the overall ME, this parameter can be also related to patient-specific characteristics, such as lung compliance or patient weight, which can further improve the value of ME for characterizing the aggressiveness of lung ventilation. High ME is associated with poor outcomes and could be used as a prognostic parameter and indicator of the risk of VILI. ME is rarely determined in everyday practice because the calculations are complicated and based on multiple equations. Although low ME does not conclusively prevent the possibility of VILI (eg, due to the lung inhomogeneity and preexisting damage), individualization of MV settings considering ME appears to improve outcomes. This article aims to review the roles of bedside assessment of mechanical power, its relevance in mechanical ventilation, and its associations with treatment outcomes. In addition, we discuss methods for ME determination, aiming to propose the most suitable method for bedside application of the ME concept in everyday practice.

SOLVe: a closed-loop system focused on protective mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilation is an essential component in the treatment of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Prompt adaptation of the settings of a ventilator to the variable needs of patients is essential to ensure personalised and protective ventilation. Still, it is challenging and time-consuming for the therapist at the bedside. In addition, general implementation barriers hinder the timely incorporation of new evidence from clinical studies into routine clinical practice.

RESULTS

We present a system combing clinical evidence and expert knowledge within a physiological closed-loop control structure for mechanical ventilation. The system includes multiple controllers to support adequate gas exchange while adhering to multiple evidence-based components of lung protective ventilation. We performed a pilot study on three animals with an induced ARDS. The system achieved a time-in-target of over 75 % for all targets and avoided any critical phases of low oxygen saturation, despite provoked disturbances such as disconnections from the ventilator and positional changes of the subject.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented system can provide personalised and lung-protective ventilation and reduce clinician workload in clinical practice.

The Effects of Automatic Inspiratory Rise Time and Flow Termination on Operation of Closed-Loop Ventilation

BACKGROUND

Adaptive ventilation mode (AVM) is a automated mode of mechanical ventilation. AVM is comprable to adaptive support ventilation (ASV). Both recommend a tidal volume (VT) and breathing frequency (f) combination based on lung mechanics, but AVM also automatically adjusts rise time and flow termination of pressure support breaths. How these added features of AVM affect VT and f recommendations compared to ASV is not clear. The present study compared these 2 modes in a test lung with obstructive and restrictive mechanics.

METHODS

The experiment was performed in a simulated lung model in which the compliance (C) and resistance (R) could be altered independently. The ventilatory parameters at different minute volumes (MinVol%) in AVM or ASV mode were recorded.

RESULTS

When MinVol% was set at 100%, AVM provided a similar VT and f combination compared to ASV with decreasing compliance or increasing resistance. However, when MinVol% was increased to 250% simulating hyperventilation, for the severely obstructive lung (C60, R70) model, AVM provided a significantly higher f (26 ± 0.6 breaths/min vs 7.00 ± 0 breaths/min in ASV) and lower VT (240 ± 80 mL vs 491 ± 131 mL in ASV).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of automatic control of rise time and flow termination functions did not affect recommended ventilator settings in AVM in the noncompliant or obstructive lung when minute ventilation (V̇E) was low. At higher V̇E, AVM compared to ASV recommended a ventilatory strategy with lower VT and higher f. These results need to be validated in patients.

Relationship between D-dimers and dead-space on disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: A retrospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Despite its diagnostic and prognostic importance, physiologic dead space fraction is not included in the current ARDS definition or severity classification. ARDS caused by COVID-19 (C-ARDS) is characterized by increased physiologic dead space fraction and hypoxemia. Our aim was to investigate the relationship between dead space indices, markers of inflammation, immunothrombosis, severity and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality.

RESULTS

Retrospective data including demographics, gas exchange, ventilatory parameters, and respiratory mechanics in the first 24 h of invasive ventilation. Plasma concentrations of D-dimers and ferritin were not significantly different across C-ARDS severity categories. Weak relationships were found between D-dimers and VR (r = 0.07, p = 0.13), P_ETCO₂/PaCO₂ (r = -0.1, p = 0.02), or estimated dead space fraction (r = 0.019, p = 0.68). Age, PaO₂/FiO₂, pH, P_ETCO₂/PaCO₂ and ferritin, were independently associated with ICU mortality. We found no association between D-dimers or ferritin and any dead-space indices adjusting for PaO₂/FiO₂, days of ventilation, tidal volume, and respiratory system compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

We report no association between dead space and inflammatory markers in mechanically ventilated patients with C-ARDS. Our results support theories suggesting that multiple mechanisms, in addition to immunothrombosis, play a role in the pathophysiology of respiratory failure and degree of dead space in C-ARDS.

Determining respiratory rate using measured expiratory time constant: A prospective observational study

PURPOSE

Potential negative implications associated with high respiratory rate (RR) are intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEPi) generation, cardiovascular depression and possibly ventilator induced lung injury. Despite these negative consequences, optimal RR remains largely unknown. We hypothesized that without consideration of dynamics of lung emptying (i.e., the expiratory time constant [RC_EXP]) clinician settings of RR may exceed the frequency needed for optimal lung emptying.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective multicenter observational study measured RC_EXP in 56 intensive care patients receiving pressure-controlled ventilation. We compared set RR to the one predicted with RC_EXP (RR_P). Also, the subgroup of patients with prolonged RC_EXP was analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, the absolute mean difference between the set RR and RR_P was 2.8 bpm (95% CI: 2.3-3.2). Twenty-nine (52%) patients had prolonged RC_EXP (>0.8 s), mean difference between set RR and RR_P of 3.1 bpm (95% CI: 2.3-3.8; p < 0.0001) and significantly higher PEEPi compared to those with RC_EXP ≤ 0.8 s: 4.4 (95% CI: 3.6-5.2) versus 1.5 (95% CI: 0.9-2.0) cmH₂O respectively, p < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of RR_P based on measured RC_EXP revealed that the clinician-set RR exceeded that predicted by RC_EXP in the majority of patients. Measuring RC_EXP appears to be a useful variable for adjusting the RR during mandatory mechanical ventilation.

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.

Early spontaneous breathing for acute respiratory distress syndrome in individuals with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents the most severe course of COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus), usually resulting in a prolonged stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) and high mortality rates. Despite the fact that most affected individuals need invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), evidence on specific ventilation strategies for ARDS caused by COVID-19 is scarce. Spontaneous breathing during IMV is part of a therapeutic concept comprising light levels of sedation and the avoidance of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). This approach is potentially associated with both advantages (e.g. a preserved diaphragmatic motility and an optimised ventilation-perfusion ratio of the ventilated lung), as well as risks (e.g. a higher rate of ventilator-induced lung injury or a worsening of pulmonary oedema due to increases in transpulmonary pressure). As a consequence, spontaneous breathing in people with COVID-19-ARDS who are receiving IMV is subject to an ongoing debate amongst intensivists.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early spontaneous breathing activity in invasively ventilated people with COVID-19 with ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoid spontaneous breathing.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials.gov WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies from their inception to 2 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible study designs comprised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated spontaneous breathing in participants with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoided spontaneous breathing (e.g. using NMBA or deep sedation levels). Additionally, we considered controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series with comparison group, prospective cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies. For these non-RCT studies, we considered a minimum total number of 50 participants to be compared as necessary for inclusion. Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or worsening, quality of life, rate of (serious) adverse events and rate of pneumothorax. Additional outcomes were need for tracheostomy, duration of ICU length of stay and duration of hospitalisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors independently screened all studies at the title/abstract and full-text screening stage. We also planned to conduct data extraction and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We planned to conduct meta-analysis for each prioritised outcome, as well as subgroup analyses of mortality regarding severity of oxygenation impairment and duration of ARDS. In addition, we planned to perform sensitivity analyses for studies at high risk of bias, studies using NMBA in addition to deep sedation level to avoid spontaneous breathing and a comparison of preprints versus peer-reviewed articles. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible studies for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no direct evidence on whether early spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS is beneficial or detrimental to this particular group of patients.  RCTs comparing early spontaneous breathing with ventilatory strategies not allowing for spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS are necessary to determine its value within the treatment of severely ill people with COVID-19. Additionally, studies should aim to clarify whether treatment effects differ between people with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS and people with non-SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS.

High Expression of CXCL10/CXCR3 in Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury Caused by High Mechanical Power

BACKGROUND

The energy delivered by a ventilator to the respiratory system in one minute is defined as mechanical power (MP). However, the effect of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) in patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still unknown. Our previous studies revealed that CXCL10 may be a potential biomarker of lung injury in ARDS. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the lung injury of rats and patients under different MP conditions to explore the involvement of CXCL10 and its receptor CXCR3 in VILI.

METHODS

Patients were divided into the high mechanical power group (HMPp group) and low mechanical power group (LMPp group), while rats were assigned to the high mechanical power group (HMPr group), medium mechanical power group (MMPr group), and low mechanical power group (LMPr group). CXCL10 and CXCR3 plasma content in ARDS patients and rats under ventilation at different MP was measured, as well as their protein and mRNA expression in rat lungs.

RESULTS

CXCL10 and CXCR3 content in the plasma of ARDS patients in the HMPp was significantly higher than that in the LMPp. The increase of MP during mechanical ventilation in the rats gradually increased lung damage, and CXCL10 and CXCR3 levels in rat plasma gradually increased with the increase of MP. CXCL10 and CXCR3 protein and mRNA expression in the HMPr group and MMPr group was significantly higher than that in the LMPr group (P < 0.05). More mast cells were present in the trachea, bronchus, blood vessels, and lymphatic system in the rat lungs of the HMPr group, and the number of mast cells in the HMPr group (13.32 ± 3.27) was significantly higher than that in the LMPr group (3.25 ± 0.29) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The higher the MP, the more severe the lung injury, and the higher the CXCL10/CXCR3 expression. Therefore, CXCL10/CXCR3 might participate in VILI by mediating mast cell chemotaxis.

Mechanical Power: A New Concept in Mechanical Ventilation

Mechanical ventilation is a potentially life-saving therapy for patients with acute lung injury, but the ventilator itself may cause lung injury. Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) is sometimes an unfortunate consequence of mechanical ventilation. It is not clear however how best to minimize VILI through adjustment of various parameters including tidal volume, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP). No single parameter provides a clear indication for onset of lung injury attributable exclusively to the ventilator. There is currently interest in quantifying how static and dynamic parameters contribute to VILI. One concept that has emerged is the consideration of the amount of energy transferred from the ventilator to the respiratory system per unit time, which can be quantified as mechanical power. This review article reports on recent literature in this emerging field and future roles for mechanical power assessments in prospective studies.

Progress of mechanical power in the intensive care unit

Mechanical power of ventilation, currently defined as the energy delivered from the ventilator to the respiratory system over a period of time, has been recognized as a promising indicator to evaluate ventilator-induced lung injury and predict the prognosis of ventilated critically ill patients. Mechanical power can be accurately measured by the geometric method, while simplified equations allow an easy estimation of mechanical power at the bedside. There may exist a safety threshold of mechanical power above which lung injury is inevitable, and the assessment of mechanical power might be helpful to determine whether the extracorporeal respiratory support is needed in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. It should be noted that relatively low mechanical power does not exclude the possibility of lung injury. Lung size and inhomogeneity should also be taken into consideration. Problems regarding the safety limits of mechanical power and contribution of each component to lung injury have not been determined yet. Whether mechanical power-directed lung-protective ventilation strategy could improve clinical outcomes also needs further investigation. Therefore, this review discusses the algorithms, clinical relevance, optimization, and future directions of mechanical power in critically ill patients.