BackgroundDexmedetomidine can be used for sedation of mechanically ventilated patients and has minor respiratory effects. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of patient-ventilator dyssynchronies during sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised clinical trial, comparing dexmedetomidine with standard propofol sedation at three intensive care units of university hospitals in Italy. Twenty difficult-to-wean patients for whom the first weaning trial had failed and who were on pressure support ventilation were randomised to receive sedation with either dexmedetomidine or propofol at a similar level of sedation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale [RASS] score +1 to −2). The asynchrony index (AI) was calculated using tracings of airflow, airway pressure and electrical activity of the diaphragm sampled at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24 h.ResultsThe mean AI was lower with dexmedetomidine than with propofol from 2 h onwards, although the two groups significantly differed only at 12 h (2.68 % vs 9.10 %, p < 0.05). No further difference was observed at 18 and 24 h.ConclusionsWhen sedation with propofol and dexmedetomidine was compared at similar RASS scores of patients in whom first weaning trial had failed, the AI was lower with dexmedetomidine than with propofol, and this difference was statistically significant at 12 h. These results suggest that sedation with dexmedetomidine may offer some advantages in terms of patient-ventilator synchrony.

Patient-ventilator synchrony was significantly better with ET during the bench study; in the human study, FM outperformed H.

Compared to the SH, the NH is equally effective in delivering nCPAP and more effective in delivering nPSV, and it is used to avoid the need for armpit braces.

PAV+ improves patient-ventilator interaction, significantly reducing the incidence of end-expiratory asynchrony and increasing the time of synchrony.

BackgroundPostoperative respiratory failure (PRF, namely mechanical ventilation >48 hours) significantly affects morbidity and mortality in liver transplantation (LTx). Previous studies analyzed only one or two categories of PRF risk factors (preoperative, intraoperative or postoperative ones).The aims of this study were to identify PRF predictors, to assess the length of stay (LoS) in ICU and the 90-day survival according to the PRF in LTx patients.MethodsTwo classification approaches were used: systematic classification (recipient-related preoperative factors; intraoperative factors; logistic factors; donor factors; postoperative ICU factors; postoperative surgical factors) and patient/organ classification (patient-related general factors; native-liver factors; new-liver factors; kidney factors; heart factors; brain factors; lung factors). Two hundred adult non-acute patients were included. Missing analysis was performed. The competitive role of each factor was assessed.ResultsPRF occurred in 36.0% of cases. Among 28 significant PRF predictors at univariate analysis, 6 were excluded because of collinearity, 22 were investigated by ROC curves and by logistic regression analysis. Recipient age (OR = 1.05; p = 0.010), female sex (OR = 2.75; p = 0.018), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD, OR = 1.09; p<0.001), restrictive lung pattern (OR = 2.49; p = 0.027), intraoperative veno-venous bypass (VVBP, OR = 3.03; p = 0.008), pre-extubation PaCO2 (OR = 1.11; p = 0.003) and Model for Early Allograft Function (MEAF, OR = 1.37; p<0.001) resulted independent PRF risk factors. As compared to patients without PRF, the PRF-group had longer LoS (10 days IQR 7–18 versus 5 days IQR 4–7, respectively; p<0.001) and lower day-90 survival (86.0% versus 97.6% respectively, p<0.001).ConclusionIn conclusion, MELD, restrictive lung pattern, surgical complexity as captured by VVBP, pre-extubation PaCO2 and MEAF are the main predictors of PRF in non-acute LTx patients.