Different Inspiratory Flow Waveform during Volume-Controlled Ventilation in ARDS Patients

Comparative study of ventilation techniques with supraglottic airway devices in cats: volume-controlled vs pressure-controlled techniques

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the effectiveness of a new supraglottic airway device (SGAD) in cats undergoing anaesthesia using two types of mechanical ventilation: volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV).

METHODS

A total of 13 healthy cats (five male, eight female; median age 2 years [range 1-3]) were randomly allocated to either VCV or PCV. Five tidal volumes (6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 ml/kg) and five peak inspiratory pressures (4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 cmH2O) were randomly applied with a minute ventilation of 100 ml/kg/min. Various parameters, such as blood pressure, gas leakage, end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) and work of breathing (WOB), were measured while using VCV or PCV.

RESULTS

The occurrence of hypotension (mean arterial blood pressure <60 mmHg) was slightly less frequent with VCV (38 events, 65 ventilating sessions) than with PCV (40 events, 65 ventilating sessions), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.429). The number of leakages did not differ between the VCV group (3 events, 65 ventilating sessions) and the PCV group (3 events, 65 ventilating sessions) (P = 1.000). Hypercapnia was identified when using VCV (10 events, 65 ventilating sessions) less frequently than when using PCV (17 events, 65 ventilating sessions), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.194). The study found a significantly higher WOB in the PCV group compared with the VCV group (P <0.034).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The present results suggested that both VCV and PCV can be used with an SGAD during anaesthesia, with VCV preferred for prolonged mechanical ventilation due to its lower workload. Adjusting tidal volume or inspiratory pressure corrects hypercapnia.

Plateau Pressure and Driving Pressure in Volume- and Pressure-Controlled Ventilation: Comparison of Frictional and Viscoelastic Resistive Components in Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

To examine frictional, viscoelastic, and elastic resistive components, as well threshold pressures, during volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in pediatric patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Seven-bed PICU, Hospital El Carmen de Maipú, Chile.

PATIENTS

Eighteen mechanically ventilated patients less than or equal to 15 years old undergoing neuromuscular blockade as part of management for ARDS.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

All patients were in VCV mode during measurement of pulmonary mechanics, including: the first pressure drop (P1) upon reaching zero flow during the inspiratory hold, peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), plateau pressure (P PLAT ), and total positive end-expiratory pressure (tPEEP). We calculated the components of the working pressure, as defined by the following: frictional resistive = PIP-P1; viscoelastic resistive = P1-P PLAT ; purely elastic = driving pressure (ΔP) = P PLAT -tPEEP; and threshold = intrinsic PEEP. The procedures and calculations were repeated on PCV, keeping the same tidal volume and inspiratory time. Measurements in VCV were considered the gold standard. We performed Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) for patient age was 5 months (2-17 mo). Tidal volume was 5.7 mL/kg (5.3-6.1 mL/kg), PIP cm H 2 O 26 (23-27 cm H 2 O), P1 23 cm H 2 O (21-26 cm H 2 O), P PLAT 19 cm H 2 O (17-22 cm H 2 O), tPEEP 9 cm H 2 O (8-9 cm H 2 O), and ΔP 11 cm H 2 O (9-13 cm H 2 O) in VCV mode at baseline. There was a robust correlation (rho > 0.8) and agreement between frictional resistive, elastic, and threshold components of working pressure in both modes but not for the viscoelastic resistive component. The purely frictional resistive component was negligible. Median peak inspiratory flow with decelerating-flow was 21 (IQR, 15-26) and squared-shaped flow was 7 L/min (IQR, 6-10 L/min) ( p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

P PLAT , ΔP, and tPEEP can guide clinical decisions independent of the ventilatory mode. The modest purely frictional resistive component emphasizes the relevance of maintaining the same safety limits, regardless of the selected ventilatory mode. Therefore, peak inspiratory flow should be studied as a mechanism of ventilator-induced lung injury in pediatric ARDS.