Airway Pressure Release Ventilation With Time-Controlled Adaptive Ventilation (TCAV™) in COVID-19: A Community Hospital's Experience

Inconsistent Methods Used to Set Airway Pressure Release Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a protective mechanical ventilation mode for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that theoretically may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and ARDS-related mortality. However, there is no standard method to set and adjust the APRV mode shown to be optimal. Therefore, we performed a meta-regression analysis to evaluate how the four individual APRV settings impacted the outcome in these patients. Methods: Studies investigating the use of the APRV mode for ARDS patients were searched from electronic databases. We tested individual settings, including (1) high airway pressure (PHigh); (2) low airway pressure (PLow); (3) time at high airway pressure (THigh); and (4) time at low pressure (TLow) for association with PaO2/FiO2 ratio and ICU length of stay. Results: There was no significant difference in PaO2/FiO2 ratio between the groups in any of the four settings (PHigh difference -12.0 [95% CI -100.4, 86.4]; PLow difference 54.3 [95% CI -52.6, 161.1]; TLow difference -27.19 [95% CI -127.0, 72.6]; THigh difference -51.4 [95% CI -170.3, 67.5]). There was high heterogeneity across all parameters (PhHgh I2 = 99.46%, PLow I2 = 99.16%, TLow I2 = 99.31%, THigh I2 = 99.29%). Conclusions: None of the four individual APRV settings independently were associated with differences in outcome. A holistic approach, analyzing all settings in combination, may improve APRV efficacy since it is known that small differences in ventilator settings can significantly alter mortality. Future clinical trials should set and adjust APRV based on the best current scientific evidence available.

Time-Controlled Adaptive Ventilation (TCAV): a personalized strategy for lung protection

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) alters the dynamics of lung inflation during mechanical ventilation. Repetitive alveolar collapse and expansion (RACE) predisposes the lung to ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Two broad approaches are currently used to minimize VILI: (1) low tidal volume (LVT) with low-moderate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP); and (2) open lung approach (OLA). The LVT approach attempts to protect already open lung tissue from overdistension, while simultaneously resting collapsed tissue by excluding it from the cycle of mechanical ventilation. By contrast, the OLA attempts to reinflate potentially recruitable lung, usually over a period of seconds to minutes using higher PEEP used to prevent progressive loss of end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and RACE. However, even with these protective strategies, clinical studies have shown that ARDS-related mortality remains unacceptably high with a scarcity of effective interventions over the last two decades. One of the main limitations these varied interventions demonstrate to benefit is the observed clinical and pathologic heterogeneity in ARDS. We have developed an alternative ventilation strategy known as the Time Controlled Adaptive Ventilation (TCAV) method of applying the Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) mode, which takes advantage of the heterogeneous time- and pressure-dependent collapse and reopening of lung units. The TCAV method is a closed-loop system where the expiratory duration personalizes VT and EELV. Personalization of TCAV is informed and tuned with changes in respiratory system compliance (CRS) measured by the slope of the expiratory flow curve during passive exhalation. Two potentially beneficial features of TCAV are: (i) the expiratory duration is personalized to a given patient's lung physiology, which promotes alveolar stabilization by halting the progressive collapse of alveoli, thereby minimizing the time for the reopened lung to collapse again in the next expiration, and (ii) an extended inspiratory phase at a fixed inflation pressure after alveolar stabilization gradually reopens a small amount of tissue with each breath. Subsequently, densely collapsed regions are slowly ratcheted open over a period of hours, or even days. Thus, TCAV has the potential to minimize VILI, reducing ARDS-related morbidity and mortality.

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.