The increase in cardiac output induced by a decrease in positive end-expiratory pressure reliably detects volume responsiveness: the PEEP-test study

Comparing physiological impacts of positive pressure ventilation versus self-breathing via a versatile cardiopulmonary model incorporating a novel alveoli opening mechanism

Mathematical models can be used to generate high-fidelity simulations of the cardiopulmonary system. Such models, when applied to real patients, can provide valuable insights into underlying physiological processes that are hard for clinicians to observe directly. In this work, we propose a novel modelling strategy capable of generating scenario-specific cardiopulmonary simulations to replicate the vital physiological signals clinicians use to determine the state of a patient. This model is composed of a tree-like pulmonary system that features a novel, non-linear alveoli opening strategy, based on the dynamics of balloon inflation, that interacts with the cardiovascular system via the thorax. A baseline simulation of the model is performed to measure the response of the system during spontaneous breathing which is subsequently compared to the same system under mechanical ventilation. To test the new lung opening mechanics and systematic recruitment of alveolar units, a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) test is performed and its results are then compared to simulations of a deep spontaneous breath. The system displays a marked decrease in tidal volume as PEEP increases, replicating a sigmoidal curve relationship between volume and pressure. At high PEEP, cardiovascular function is shown to be visibly impaired, in contrast to the deep breath test where normal function is maintained.

Heart-Lungs interactions: the basics and clinical implications

Heart-lungs interactions are related to the interplay between the cardiovascular and the respiratory system. They result from the respiratory-induced changes in intrathoracic pressure, which are transmitted to the cardiac cavities and to the changes in alveolar pressure, which may impact the lung microvessels. In spontaneously breathing patients, consequences of heart-lungs interactions are during inspiration an increase in right ventricular preload and afterload, a decrease in left ventricular preload and an increase in left ventricular afterload. In mechanically ventilated patients, consequences of heart-lungs interactions are during mechanical insufflation a decrease in right ventricular preload, an increase in right ventricular afterload, an increase in left ventricular preload and a decrease in left ventricular afterload. Physiologically and during normal breathing, heart-lungs interactions do not lead to significant hemodynamic consequences. Nevertheless, in some clinical settings such as acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute left heart failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome, heart-lungs interactions may lead to significant hemodynamic consequences. These are linked to complex pathophysiological mechanisms, including a marked inspiratory negativity of intrathoracic pressure, a marked inspiratory increase in transpulmonary pressure and an increase in intra-abdominal pressure. The most recent application of heart-lungs interactions is the prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. The first test to be developed using heart-lungs interactions was the respiratory variation of pulse pressure. Subsequently, many other dynamic fluid responsiveness tests using heart-lungs interactions have been developed, such as the respiratory variations of pulse contour-based stroke volume or the respiratory variations of the inferior or superior vena cava diameters. All these tests share the same limitations, the most frequent being low tidal volume ventilation, persistent spontaneous breathing activity and cardiac arrhythmia. Nevertheless, when their main limitations are properly addressed, all these tests can help intensivists in the decision-making process regarding fluid administration and fluid removal in critically ill patients.

Effects of Positive End-expiratory Pressure on Pulmonary Perfusion Distribution and Intrapulmonary Shunt during One-lung Ventilation in Pigs: A Randomized Crossover Study

BACKGROUND

During one-lung ventilation (OLV), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can improve lung aeration but might overdistend lung units and increase intrapulmonary shunt. The authors hypothesized that higher PEEP shifts pulmonary perfusion from the ventilated to the nonventilated lung, resulting in a U-shaped relationship with intrapulmonary shunt during OLV.

METHODS

In nine anesthetized female pigs, a thoracotomy was performed and intravenous lipopolysaccharide infused to mimic the inflammatory response of thoracic surgery. Animals underwent OLV in supine position with PEEP of 0 cm H2O, 5 cm H2O, titrated to best respiratory system compliance, and 15 cm H2O (PEEP0, PEEP5, PEEPtitr, and PEEP15, respectively, 45 min each, Latin square sequence). Respiratory, hemodynamic, and gas exchange variables were measured. The distributions of perfusion and ventilation were determined by IV fluorescent microspheres and computed tomography, respectively.

RESULTS

Compared to two-lung ventilation, the driving pressure increased with OLV, irrespective of the PEEP level. During OLV, cardiac output was lower at PEEP15 (5.5 ± 1.5 l/min) than PEEP0 (7.6 ± 3 l/min) and PEEP5 (7.4 ± 2.9 l/min; P = 0.004), while the intrapulmonary shunt was highest at PEEP0 (PEEP0: 48.1% ± 14.4%; PEEP5: 42.4% ± 14.8%; PEEPtitr: 37.8% ± 11.0%; PEEP15: 39.0% ± 10.7%; P = 0.027). The relative perfusion of the ventilated lung did not differ among PEEP levels (PEEP0: 65.0% ± 10.6%; PEEP5: 68.7% ± 8.7%; PEEPtitr: 68.2% ± 10.5%; PEEP15: 58.4% ± 12.8%; P = 0.096), but the centers of relative perfusion and ventilation in the ventilated lung shifted from ventral to dorsal and from cranial to caudal zones with increasing PEEP.

CONCLUSIONS

In this experimental model of thoracic surgery, higher PEEP during OLV did not shift the perfusion from the ventilated to the nonventilated lung, thus not increasing intrapulmonary shunt.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Recent advances in cardiorespiratory monitoring in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients

BACKGROUND

Recent advances on cardiorespiratory monitoring applied in ARDS patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation and noninvasive ventilatory support are available in the literature and may have potential prognostic implication in ARDS treatment.

MAIN BODY

The measurement of oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry is a valid, low-cost, noninvasive alternative for assessing arterial oxygenation. Caution must be taken in patients with darker skin pigmentation, who may experience a greater incidence of occult hypoxemia. Dead space surrogates, which are easy to calculate, have important prognostic implications. The mechanical power, which can be automatically computed by intensive care ventilators, is an important parameter correlated with ventilator-induced lung injury and outcome. In patients undergoing noninvasive ventilatory support, the use of esophageal pressure can measure inspiratory effort, avoiding possible delays in endotracheal intubation. Fluid responsiveness can also be evaluated using dynamic indices in patients ventilated at low tidal volumes (< 8 mL/kg). In patients ventilated at high levels of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), the PEEP test represents a valid alternative to passive leg raising. There is growing evidence on alternative parameters for evaluating fluid responsiveness, such as central venous oxygen saturation variations, inferior vena cava diameter variations and capillary refill time.

CONCLUSION

Careful cardiorespiratory monitoring in patients affected by ARDS is crucial to improve prognosis and to tailor treatment via mechanical ventilatory support.

Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, and brain oxygenation in acute brain injury: Friend or foe? A scoping review

Background

Patients with acute brain injury (ABI) are a peculiar population because ABI does not only affect the brain but also other organs such as the lungs, as theorized in brain-lung crosstalk models. ABI patients often require mechanical ventilation (MV) to avoid the complications of impaired respiratory function that can follow ABI; MV should be settled with meticulousness owing to its effects on the intracranial compartment, especially regarding positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). This scoping review aimed to (1) describe the physiological basis and mechanisms related to the effects of PEEP in ABI; (2) examine how clinical research is conducted on this topic; (3) identify methods for setting PEEP in ABI; and (4) investigate the impact of the application of PEEP in ABI on the outcome.

Methods

The five-stage paradigm devised by Peters et al. and expanded by Arksey and O'Malley, Levac et al., and the Joanna Briggs Institute was used for methodology. We also adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension criteria. Inclusion criteria: we compiled all scientific data from peer-reviewed journals and studies that discussed the application of PEEP and its impact on intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, and brain oxygenation in adult patients with ABI. Exclusion criteria: studies that only examined a pediatric patient group (those under the age of 18), experiments conducted solely on animals; studies without intracranial pressure and/or cerebral perfusion pressure determinations, and studies with incomplete information. Two authors searched and screened for inclusion in papers published up to July 2023 using the PubMed-indexed online database. Data were presented in narrative and tubular form.

Results

The initial search yielded 330 references on the application of PEEP in ABI, of which 36 met our inclusion criteria. PEEP has recognized beneficial effects on gas exchange, but it produces hemodynamic changes that should be predicted to avoid undesired consequences on cerebral blood flow and intracranial pressure. Moreover, the elastic properties of the lungs influence the transmission of the forces applied by MV over the brain so they should be taken into consideration. Currently, there are no specific tools that can predict the effect of PEEP on the brain, but there is an established need for a comprehensive monitoring approach for these patients, acknowledging the etiology of ABI and the measurable variables to personalize MV.

Conclusion

PEEP can be safely used in patients with ABI to improve gas exchange keeping in mind its potentially harmful effects, which can be predicted with adequate monitoring supported by bedside non-invasive neuromonitoring tools.

Hemodynamic effects of positive end-expiratory pressure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is required in the Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome and is a cornerstone of its treatment. Application of PEEP increases airway pressure and modifies pleural and transpulmonary pressures according to respiratory mechanics, resulting in blood volume alteration into the pulmonary circulation. This can in turn affect right ventricular preload, afterload and function. At the opposite, PEEP may improve left ventricular function, providing no deleterious effect occurs on the right ventricle.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review examines the impact of PEEP on cardiac function with regards to heart-lung interactions, and describes its consequences on organs perfusion and function, including the kidney, gut, liver and the brain. PEEP in itself is not beneficious nor detrimental on end-organ hemodynamics, but its hemodynamic effects vary according to both respiratory mechanics and association with other hemodynamic variables such as central venous or mean arterial pressure. There are parallels in the means of preventing deleterious impact of PEEP on the lungs, heart, kidney, liver and central nervous system.

SUMMARY

The quest for optimal PEEP settings has been a prominent goal in ARDS research for the last decades. Intensive care physician must maintain a high degree of vigilance towards hemodynamic effects of PEEP on cardiac function and end-organs circulation.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023

OBJECTIVES

To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock.

DESIGN

Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities.

METHODS

Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article.

RESULTS

A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis?

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.