Clinical risk factors for increased respiratory drive in intubated hypoxemic patients

Phenotypes based on respiratory drive and effort to identify the risk factors when P0.1 fails to estimate ∆PES in ventilated children

BACKGROUND

Monitoring respiratory effort and drive during mechanical ventilation is needed to deliver lung and diaphragm protection. Esophageal pressure (∆PES) is the gold standard measure of respiratory effort but is not routinely available. Airway occlusion pressure in the first 100 ms of the breath (P0.1) is a readily available surrogate for both respiratory effort and drive but is only modestly correlated with ∆PES in children. We sought to identify risk factors for P0.1 over or underestimating ∆PES in ventilated children.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of physiological data from children and young adults enrolled in a randomized controlled trial testing lung and diaphragm protective ventilation in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS) (NCT03266016). ∆PES (∆PES-REAL), P0.1 and predicted ∆PES (∆PES-PRED = 5.91*P0.1) were measured daily to identify phenotypes based upon the level of respiratory effort and drive: one passive (no spontaneous breathing), three where ∆PES-REAL and ∆PES-PRED were aligned (low, normal, and high effort and drive), two where ∆PES-REAL and ∆PES-PRED were mismatched (high underestimated effort, and overestimated effort). Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with each mismatch phenotype (High underestimated effort, or overestimated effort) as compared to all other spontaneous breathing phenotypes.

RESULTS

We analyzed 953 patient days (222 patients). ∆PES-REAL and ∆PES-PRED were aligned in 536 (77%) of the active patient days. High underestimated effort (n = 119 (12%)) was associated with higher airway resistance (adjusted OR 5.62 (95%CI 2.58, 12.26) per log unit increase, p < 0.001), higher tidal volume (adjusted OR 1.53 (95%CI 1.04, 2.24) per cubic unit increase, p = 0.03), higher opioid use (adjusted OR 2.4 (95%CI 1.12, 5.13, p = 0.024), and lower set ventilator rate (adjusted OR 0.96 (95%CI 0.93, 0.99), p = 0.005). Overestimated effort was rare (n = 37 (4%)) and associated with higher alveolar dead space (adjusted OR 1.05 (95%CI 1.01, 1.09), p = 0.007) and lower respiratory resistance (adjusted OR 0.32 (95%CI 0.13, 0.81), p = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with PARDS, P0.1 commonly underestimated high respiratory effort particularly with high airway resistance, high tidal volume, and high doses of opioids. Future studies are needed to investigate the impact of measures of respiratory effort, drive, and the presence of a mismatch phenotype on clinical outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03266016; August 23, 2017.

High Airway Occlusion Pressure Is Associated with Dyspnea and Increased Mortality in Critically Ill Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Rationale: Airway occlusion pressure at 100 ms (P0.1) reflects central respiratory drive. Objectives: We aimed to assess factors associated with P0.1 and whether an abnormally low or high P0.1 value is associated with higher mortality and longer duration of mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study conducted in 10 ICUs in France to evaluate dyspnea in communicative MV patients. In patients intubated for more than 24 hours, P0.1 was measured with dyspnea as soon as patients could communicate and the next day. Measurements and Main Results: Among 260 patients assessed after a median time of ventilation of 4 days, P0.1 was 1.9 (1-3.5) cm H2O at enrollment, 24% had P0.1 values >3.5 cm H2O, 37% had P0.1 values between 1.5 and 3.5 cm H2O, and 39% had P0.1 values <1.5 cm H2O. In multivariable linear regression, independent factors associated with P0.1 were the presence of dyspnea (P = 0.037), respiratory rate (P < 0.001), and PaO2 (P = 0.008). Ninety-day mortality was 33% in patients with P0.1 > 3.5 cm H2O versus 19% in those with P0.1 between 1.5 and 3.5 cm H2O and 17% in those with P0.1 < 1.5 cm H2O (P = 0.046). After adjustment for the main risk factors, P0.1 was associated with 90-day mortality (hazard ratio per 1 cm H2O, 1.19 [95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.37]; P = 0.011). P0.1 was also independently associated with a longer duration of MV (hazard ratio per 1 cm H2O, 1.10 [95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.19]; P = 0.016). Conclusions: In patients receiving invasive MV, abnormally high P0.1 values may suggest dyspnea and are associated with higher mortality and prolonged duration of MV.

Clinical and Experimental Evidence for Patient Self-Inflicted Lung Injury (P-SILI) and Bedside Monitoring

Patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) is a major challenge for the ICU physician: although spontaneous breathing is associated with physiological benefits, in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the risk of uncontrolled inspiratory effort leading to additional injury needs to be assessed to avoid delayed intubation and increased mortality. In the present review, we analyze the available clinical and experimental evidence supporting the existence of lung injury caused by uncontrolled high inspiratory effort, we discuss the pathophysiological mechanisms by which increased effort causes P-SILI, and, finally, we consider the measurements and interpretation of bedside physiological measures of increased drive that should alert the clinician. The data presented in this review could help to recognize injurious respiratory patterns that may trigger P-SILI and to prevent it.

High vs Low PEEP in Patients With ARDS Exhibiting Intense Inspiratory Effort During Assisted Ventilation: A Randomized Crossover Trial

BACKGROUND

Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can potentially modulate inspiratory effort (ΔPes), which is the major determinant of self-inflicted lung injury.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does high PEEP reduce ΔPes in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS on assisted ventilation?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Sixteen patients with Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 200 mm Hg and ΔPes ≥ 10 cm H2O underwent a randomized sequence of four ventilator settings: PEEP = 5 cm H2O or PEEP = 15 cm H2O + synchronous (pressure support ventilation [PSV]) or asynchronous (pressure-controlled intermittent mandatory ventilation [PC-IMV]) inspiratory assistance. ΔPes and respiratory system, lung, and chest wall mechanics were assessed with esophageal manometry and occlusions. PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment and overinflation, lung dynamic strain, and tidal volume distribution were assessed with electrical impedance tomography.

RESULTS

ΔPes was not systematically different at high vs low PEEP (pressure support ventilation: median, 20 cm H2O; interquartile range (IQR), 15-24 cm H2O vs median, 15 cm H2O; IQR, 13-23 cm H2O; P = .24; pressure-controlled intermittent mandatory ventilation: median, 20; IQR, 18-23 vs median, 19; IQR, 17-25; P = .67, respectively). Similarly, respiratory system and transpulmonary driving pressures, tidal volume, lung/chest wall mechanics, and pendelluft extent were not different between study phases. High PEEP resulted in lower or higher ΔPes, respiratory system driving pressure, and transpulmonary driving pressure according to whether this increased or decreased respiratory system compliance (r = -0.85, P < .001; r = -0.75, P < .001; r = -0.80, P < .001, respectively). PEEP-induced changes in respiratory system compliance were driven by its lung component and were dependent on the extent of PEEP-induced alveolar overinflation (r = -0.66, P = .006). High PEEP caused variable recruitment and systematic redistribution of tidal volume toward dorsal lung regions, thereby reducing dynamic strain in ventral areas (pressure support ventilation: median, 0.49; IQR, 0.37-0.83 vs median, 0.96; IQR, 0.62-1.56; P = .003; pressure-controlled intermittent mandatory ventilation: median, 0.65; IQR, 0.42-1.31 vs median, 1.14; IQR, 0.79-1.52; P = .002). All results were consistent during synchronous and asynchronous inspiratory assistance.

INTERPRETATION

The impact of high PEEP on ΔPes and lung stress is interindividually variable according to different effects on the respiratory system and lung compliance resulting from alveolar overinflation. High PEEP may help mitigate the risk of self-inflicted lung injury solely if it increases lung/respiratory system compliance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04241874; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Controlled Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Patients and the Potential Role of Venous Bagging in Acute Kidney Injury

A very low incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) has been observed in COVID-19 patients purposefully treated with early pressure support ventilation (PSV) compared to those receiving mainly controlled ventilation. The prevention of subdiaphragmatic venous congestion through limited fluid intake and the lowering of intrathoracic pressure is a possible and attractive explanation for this observed phenomenon. Both venous congestion, or "venous bagging", and a positive fluid balance correlate with the occurrence of AKI. The impact of PSV on venous return, in addition to the effects of limiting intravenous fluids, may, at least in part, explain this even more clearly when there is no primary kidney disease or the presence of nephrotoxins. Optimizing the patient-ventilator interaction in PSV is challenging, in part because of the need for the ongoing titration of sedatives and opioids. The known benefits include improved ventilation/perfusion matching and reduced ventilator time. Furthermore, conservative fluid management positively influences cognitive and psychiatric morbidities in ICU patients and survivors. Here, it is hypothesized that cranial lymphatic congestion in relation to a more positive intrathoracic pressure, i.e., in patients predominantly treated with controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV), is a contributing risk factor for ICU delirium. No studies have addressed the question of how PSV can limit AKI, nor are there studies providing high-level evidence relating controlled mechanical ventilation to AKI. For this perspective article, we discuss studies in the literature demonstrating the effects of venous congestion leading to AKI. We aim to shed light on early PSV as a preventive measure, especially for the development of AKI and ICU delirium and emphasize the need for further research in this domain.

Setting positive end-expiratory pressure: role in diaphragm-protective ventilation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With mechanical ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is applied to improve oxygenation and lung homogeneity. However, PEEP setting has been hypothesized to contribute to critical illness associated diaphragm dysfunction via several mechanisms. Here, we discuss the impact of PEEP on diaphragm function, activity and geometry.

RECENT FINDINGS

PEEP affects diaphragm geometry: it induces a caudal movement of the diaphragm dome and shortening of the zone of apposition. This results in reduced diaphragm neuromechanical efficiency. After prolonged PEEP application, the zone of apposition adapts by reducing muscle fiber length, so-called longitudinal muscle atrophy. When PEEP is withdrawn, for instance during a spontaneous breathing trial, the shortened diaphragm muscle fibers may over-stretch which may lead to (additional) diaphragm myotrauma. Furthermore, PEEP may either increase or decrease respiratory drive and resulting respiratory effort, probably depending on lung recruitability. Finally, the level of PEEP can also influence diaphragm activity in the expiratory phase, which may be an additional mechanism for diaphragm myotrauma.

SUMMARY

Setting PEEP could play an important role in both lung and diaphragm protective ventilation. Both high and low PEEP levels could potentially introduce or exacerbate diaphragm myotrauma. Today, the impact of PEEP setting on diaphragm structure and function is in its infancy, and clinical implications are largely unknown.

Airway and Transpulmonary Driving Pressure by End-Inspiratory Holds During Pressure Support Ventilation

BACKGROUND

The precision of quasi-static airway driving pressure (ΔP) assessed in pressure support ventilation (PSV) as a surrogate of tidal lung stress is debatable because persistent muscular activity frequently alters the readability of end-inspiratory holds. In this study, we used strict criteria to discard excessive muscular activity during holds and assessed the accuracy of ΔP in predicting global lung stress in PSV. Additionally, we explored whether the physiological effects of high PEEP differed according to the response of respiratory system compliance (CRS).

METHODS

Adults with ARDS undergoing PSV were enrolled. An esophageal catheter was inserted to calculate lung stress through transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL). ΔP and ΔPL were assessed in PSV at PEEP 5, 10, and 15 cm H2O by end-inspiratory holds. CRS was calculated as tidal volume (VT)/ΔP. We analyzed the effects of high PEEP on pressure-time product per minute (PTPmin), airway pressure at 100 ms (P0.1), and VT over PTP per breath (VT/PTPbr) in subjects with increased versus decreased CRS at high PEEP.

RESULTS

Eighteen subjects and 162 end-inspiratory holds were analyzed; 51/162 (31.5%) of the holds had ΔPL ≥ 12 cm H2O. Significant association between ΔP and ΔPL was found at all PEEP levels (P < .001). ΔP had excellent precision to predict ΔPL, with 15 cm H2O being identified as the best threshold for detecting ΔPL ≥ 12 cm H2O (area under the receiver operating characteristics 0.99 [95% CI 0.98-1.00]). CRS changes from low to high PEEP corresponded well with lung compliance changes (R2 0.91, P < .001) When CRS increased, a significant improvement of PTPmin and VT/PTPbr was found, without changes in P0.1. No benefits were observed when CRS decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with ARDS undergoing PSV, high ΔP assessed by readable end-inspiratory holds accurately detected potentially dangerous thresholds of ΔPL. Using ΔP to assess changes in CRS induced by PEEP during assisted ventilation may inform whether higher PEEP could be beneficial.

Understanding cardiopulmonary interactions through esophageal pressure monitoring

Esophageal pressure is the closest estimate of pleural pressure. Changes in esophageal pressure reflect changes in intrathoracic pressure and affect transpulmonary pressure, both of which have multiple effects on right and left ventricular performance. During passive breathing, increasing esophageal pressure is associated with lower venous return and higher right ventricular afterload and lower left ventricular afterload and oxygen consumption. In spontaneously breathing patients, negative pleural pressure swings increase venous return, while right heart afterload increases as in passive conditions; for the left ventricle, end-diastolic pressure is increased potentially favoring lung edema. Esophageal pressure monitoring represents a simple bedside method to estimate changes in pleural pressure and can advance our understanding of the cardiovascular performance of critically ill patients undergoing passive or assisted ventilation and guide physiologically personalized treatments.