BackgroundPreservation of spontaneous breathing (SB) is sometimes debated because it has potentially both negative and positive effects on lung injury in comparison with fully controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV). We wanted (1) to verify in mechanically ventilated patients if the change in transpulmonary pressure was similar between pressure support ventilation (PSV) and CMV for a similar tidal volume, (2) to estimate the influence of SB on alveolar pressure (Palv), and (3) to determine whether a reliable plateau pressure could be measured during pressure support ventilation (PSV).MethodsWe studied ten patients equipped with esophageal catheters undergoing three levels of PSV followed by a phase of CMV. For each condition, we calculated the maximal and mean transpulmonary (ΔPL) swings and Palv.ResultsOverall, ΔPL was similar between CMV and PSV, but only loosely correlated. The differences in ΔPL between CMV and PSV were explained largely by different inspiratory flows, indicating that the resistive pressure drop caused this difference. By contrast, the Palv profile was very different between CMV and SB; SB led to progressively more negative Palv during inspiration, and Palv became lower than the set positive end-expiratory pressure in nine of ten patients at low PSV. Finally, inspiratory occlusion holds performed during PSV led to plateau and Δ PL pressures comparable with those measured during CMV.ConclusionsUnder similar conditions of flow and volume, transpulmonary pressure change is similar between CMV and PSV. SB during mechanical ventilation can cause remarkably negative swings in Palv, a mechanism by which SB might potentially induce lung injury.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1290-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Objective. We will describe our clinical experience using electrical impedance tomography (EIT) in the management of mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure and to determine to which extent EIT-guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) setting differed from clinically set values. Approach. We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study performed in a hub centre for the treatment of acute respiratory failure and veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Main results. Between January 2017 and December 2019, EIT was performed 54 times in 41 patients, not feasible only in one case because of signal instability. More than 50% was on veno-venous ECMO support. In 16 cases (30%), EIT was used for monitoring mechanical ventilation, i.e. to evaluate recruitability or sigh setting. In 37 cases (70%), EIT was used to set PEEP both with incremental (11 cases in nine patients) and decremental (26 cases, 18 patients) PEEP trial. Clinical PEEP before the decremental PEEP trial (PEEPPRE) was 14.1 ± 3.4 cmH2O and clinical PEEP set by clinicians after the PEEP trial (PEEPPOST) was 13.6 ± 3.1 (p = ns). EIT analyses demonstrated that more hypoxic patients were higher derecruited when compared to less hypoxic patients that were, on the contrary, more overdistended (p < 0.05). No acute effects of PEEP adjustment based on EIT on respiratory mechanics or regional EIT parameters modification were observed. Significance. The variability of EIT findings in our population confirmed the need to provide ventilation settings individually tailored and EIT was confirmed to be an optimal useful clinical bedside noninvasive tool to provide real-time monitoring of the PEEP effect and ventilation distribution.
BACKGROUND: A lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategy has become the hallmark of ventilation management for patients with acute respiratory failure. However, some patients progress to more severe forms of acute respiratory failure with refractory hypoxemia. In such circumstances, individualized titration of mechanical ventilation according to the patient's specific respiratory and cardiovascular pathophysiology is desirable. A lung rescue team (LRT) was recently established at our institution to improve the medical care of patients with acute respiratory failure when conventional treatment fails. The aim of this report is to describe the consultation processes, the cardiopulmonary assessment, and the procedures of the LRT. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of the LRT management of patients with acute respiratory failure and refractory hypoxemia at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. The LRT is composed of a critical care physician, the ICU respiratory therapist on duty, the ICU nurse on duty, and 2 critical care fellows. In the LRT approach, respiratory mechanics are evaluated through lung recruitment maneuvers and decremental PEEP trials by means of 3 tools: esophageal manometry, echocardiography, and electrical impedance tomography lung imaging. RESULTS: The LRT was consulted 89 times from 2014 to 2019 for evaluation and management of severely critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure and refractory hypoxemia on mechanical ventilation. The LRT was requested a median of 2 (interquartile range 1-6) d after intubation to optimize mechanical ventilation and to titrate PEEP in 77 (86%) subjects, to manage ventilation in 8 (9%) subjects on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and to manage weaning strategy from mechanical ventilation in 4 (5%) subjects. The LRT found consolidations with atelectasis responsive to recruitment maneuvers in 79% (n 5 70) of consultations. The LRT findings translated into a change of care in 81% (n 5 72) of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The LRT individualized the management of severe acute respiratory failure. The LRT consultations were shown to be effective, safe, and efficient, with an impact on decision-making in the ICU.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.