scholarly journals Comparison between Variable and Conventional Volume-Controlled Ventilation on Cardiorespiratory Parameters in Experimental Emphysema

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabela Henriques ◽  
Gisele A. Padilha ◽  
Robert Huhle ◽  
Caio Wierzchon ◽  
Paulo J. B. Miranda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Experimental Emphysema ◽  
Volume Controlled

scholarly journals Mechanical power at a glance: a simple surrogate for volume-controlled ventilation

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Giosa ◽  
Mattia Busana ◽  
Iacopo Pasticci ◽  
Matteo Bonifazi ◽  
Matteo Maria Macrì ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peak Pressure ◽  
Minute Ventilation ◽  
Clinical Intervention ◽  
Lung Parenchyma ◽  
Mechanical Power ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
New Equation ◽  
Volume Controlled

Abstract Background Mechanical power is a summary variable including all the components which can possibly cause VILI (pressures, volume, flow, respiratory rate). Since the complexity of its mathematical computation is one of the major factors that delay its clinical use, we propose here a simple and easy to remember equation to estimate mechanical power under volume-controlled ventilation: $$ \mathrm{Mechanical}\ \mathrm{Power}=\frac{\mathrm{VE}\times \left(\mathrm{Peak}\ \mathrm{Pressure}+\mathrm{PEEP}+F/6\right)}{20} $$Mechanical Power=VE×Peak Pressure+PEEP+F/620 where the mechanical power is expressed in Joules/minute, the minute ventilation (VE) in liters/minute, the inspiratory flow (F) in liters/minute, and peak pressure and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in centimeter of water. All the components of this equation are continuously displayed by any ventilator under volume-controlled ventilation without the need for clinician intervention. To test the accuracy of this new equation, we compared it with the reference formula of mechanical power that we proposed for volume-controlled ventilation in the past. The comparisons were made in a cohort of mechanically ventilated pigs (485 observations) and in a cohort of ICU patients (265 observations). Results Both in pigs and in ICU patients, the correlation between our equation and the reference one was close to the identity. Indeed, the R2 ranged from 0.97 to 0.99 and the Bland-Altman showed small biases (ranging from + 0.35 to − 0.53 J/min) and proportional errors (ranging from + 0.02 to − 0.05). Conclusions Our new equation of mechanical power for volume-controlled ventilation represents a simple and accurate alternative to the more complex ones available to date. This equation does not need any clinical intervention on the ventilator (such as an inspiratory hold) and could be easily implemented in the software of any ventilator in volume-controlled mode. This would allow the clinician to have an estimation of mechanical power at a simple glance and thus increase the clinical consciousness of this variable which is still far from being used at the bedside. Our equation carries the same limitations of all other formulas of mechanical power, the most important of which, as far as it concerns VILI prevention, are the lack of normalization and its application to the whole respiratory system (including the chest wall) and not only to the lung parenchyma.

scholarly journals Comparison of Volume-Guaranteed or -Targeted, Pressure-Controlled Ventilation with Volume-Controlled Ventilation during Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1276
Author(s):  
Volker Schick ◽  
Fabian Dusse ◽  
Ronny Eckardt ◽  
Steffen Kerkhoff ◽  
Simone Commotio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lung Ventilation ◽  
One Lung Ventilation ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Pressure Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled ◽  
Pressure Controlled

For perioperative mechanical ventilation under general anesthesia, modern respirators aim at combining the benefits of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in modes typically named “volume-guaranteed” or “volume-targeted” pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV-VG). This systematic review and meta-analysis tested the hypothesis that PCV-VG modes of ventilation could be beneficial in terms of improved airway pressures (Ppeak, Pplateau, Pmean), dynamic compliance (Cdyn), or arterial blood gases (PaO2, PaCO2) in adults undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Three major medical electronic databases were searched with predefined search strategies and publications were systematically evaluated according to the Cochrane Review Methods. Continuous variables were tested for mean differences using the inverse variance method and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Based on the assumption that intervention effects across studies were not identical, a random effects model was chosen. Assessment for heterogeneity was performed with the χ2 test and the I2 statistic. As primary endpoints, Ppeak, Pplateau, Pmean, Cdyn, PaO2, and PaCO2 were evaluated. Of the 725 publications identified, 17 finally met eligibility criteria, with a total of 929 patients recruited. Under supine two-lung ventilation, PCV-VG resulted in significantly reduced Ppeak (15 studies) and Pplateau (9 studies) as well as higher Cdyn (9 studies), compared with VCV [random effects models; Ppeak: CI −3.26 to −1.47; p < 0.001; I2 = 82%; Pplateau: −3.12 to −0.12; p = 0.03; I2 = 90%; Cdyn: CI 3.42 to 8.65; p < 0.001; I2 = 90%]. For one-lung ventilation (8 studies), PCV-VG allowed for significantly lower Ppeak and higher PaO2 compared with VCV. In Trendelenburg position (5 studies), this effect was significant for Ppeak only. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that volume-targeting, pressure-controlled ventilation modes may provide benefits with respect to the improved airway dynamics in two- and one-lung ventilation, and improved oxygenation in one-lung ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery.

scholarly journals Effects of inspiratory flow on lung stress, pendelluft, and ventilation heterogeneity in ARDS: a physiological study

Critical Care ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Santini ◽  
Tommaso Mauri ◽  
Francesca Dalla Corte ◽  
Elena Spinelli ◽  
Antonio Pesenti
Keyword(s):  
Peep Level ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Plateau Pressure ◽  
Inspiratory Flow ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Ventilation Heterogeneity ◽  
Volume Controlled ◽  
Lung Stress

Abstract Background High inspiratory flow might damage the lungs by mechanisms not fully understood yet. We hypothesized that increasing inspiratory flow would increase lung stress, ventilation heterogeneity, and pendelluft in ARDS patients undergoing volume-controlled ventilation with constant tidal volume and that higher PEEP levels would reduce this phenomenon. Methods Ten ARDS patients were studied during protective volume-controlled ventilation. Three inspiratory flows (400, 800, and 1200 ml/s) and two PEEP levels (5 and 15 cmH2O) were applied in random order to each patient. Airway and esophageal pressures were recorded, end-inspiratory and end-expiratory holds were performed, and ventilation distribution was measured with electrical impedance tomography. Peak and plateau airway and transpulmonary pressures were recorded, together with the airway and transpulmonary pressure corresponding to the first point of zero end-inspiratory flow (P1). Ventilation heterogeneity was measured by the EIT-based global inhomogeneity (GI) index. Pendelluft was measured as the absolute difference between pixel-level inflation measured at plateau pressure minus P1. Results Plateau airway and transpulmonary pressure was not affected by inspiratory flow, while P1 increased at increasing inspiratory flow. The difference between P1 and plateau pressure was higher at higher flows at both PEEP levels (p < 0.001). While higher PEEP reduced heterogeneity of ventilation, higher inspiratory flow increased GI (p = 0.05), irrespective of the PEEP level. Finally, gas volume undergoing pendelluft was larger at higher inspiratory flow (p < 0.001), while PEEP had no effect. Conclusions The present exploratory analysis suggests that higher inspiratory flow increases additional inspiratory pressure, heterogeneity of ventilation, and pendelluft while PEEP has negligible effects on these flow-dependent phenomena. The clinical significance of these findings needs to be further clarified.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document