Transpulmonary Pressure-Guided Lung-Protective Ventilation Improves Pulmonary Mechanics and Oxygenation Among Obese Subjects on Mechanical Ventilation

2021 ◽  
pp. respcare.08686
Author(s):  
Daniel D Rowley ◽  
Susan R Arrington ◽  
Kyle B Enfield ◽  
Keith D Lamb ◽  
Alexandra Kadl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Protective Ventilation ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation ◽  
Pulmonary Mechanics ◽  
Obese Subjects

Noninvasive and Invasive Ventilatory Support II

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline K. Park ◽  
Nicole L Werner ◽  
Carl Haas
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Lung Injury ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Ventilatory Support ◽  
Underlying Disease ◽  
Protective Ventilation ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation ◽  
Pulmonary Mechanics ◽  
Ventilator Induced Lung Injury

Invasive and noninvasive ventilation are important tools in the clinician’s armamentarium for managing acute respiratory failure. Although these modalities do not treat the underlying disease, they can provide the necessary oxygenation and ventilatory support until the causal pathology resolves. Care must be taken as even appropriate application can cause harm. Knowledge of pulmonary mechanics, appreciation of the basic machine settings, and an understanding of how common and advanced modes function allows the clinician to optimally tailor support to the patient while limiting iatrogenic injury. This second chapter reviews indications for mechanical ventilation, routine management, troubleshooting, and liberation from mechanical ventilation This review contains 6 figures, 7 tables and 60 references Keywords: Mechanical ventilation, lung protective ventilation, sedation, ventilator-induced lung injury, liberation from mechanical ventilation 

Noninvasive and Invasive Ventilatory Support II

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline K. Park ◽  
Nicole L Werner ◽  
Carl Haas
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Lung Injury ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Ventilatory Support ◽  
Underlying Disease ◽  
Protective Ventilation ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation ◽  
Pulmonary Mechanics ◽  
Ventilator Induced Lung Injury

Invasive and noninvasive ventilation are important tools in the clinician’s armamentarium for managing acute respiratory failure. Although these modalities do not treat the underlying disease, they can provide the necessary oxygenation and ventilatory support until the causal pathology resolves. Care must be taken as even appropriate application can cause harm. Knowledge of pulmonary mechanics, appreciation of the basic machine settings, and an understanding of how common and advanced modes function allows the clinician to optimally tailor support to the patient while limiting iatrogenic injury. This second chapter reviews indications for mechanical ventilation, routine management, troubleshooting, and liberation from mechanical ventilation This review contains 6 figures, 7 tables and 60 references Keywords: Mechanical ventilation, lung protective ventilation, sedation, ventilator-induced lung injury, liberation from mechanical ventilation 

scholarly journals Unsuccessful weaning from mechanical ventilation in children and ways to avoid it

2020 ◽  
pp. 82-89
Author(s):  
O. V. Filyk
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Protective Ventilation ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation ◽  
Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Ventilation Strategy ◽  
Group I ◽  
Protective Ventilation Strategy ◽  
Elective Tracheostomy ◽  
Group Ii ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation Strategy

The aim of the work: to determine causes of unsuccessful weaning depending on subglottic edema markers, level of sedation and sedation-agitation, changes in neurological status and bulbar disorders in children with different types of respiratory failure. Materials and Methods. We conducted a prospective cohort single-center study at the Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care at Lviv Regional Children's Clinical Hospital "OHMATDYT". We included 89 patients aged 1 month – 18 years with acute respiratory failure who was mechanically ventilated for more than 3 days. They were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group I included patients who received lung-protective ventilation strategy and assessment central nervous system function and the percentage of leakage of the gas mixture near the endotracheal tube; group II – patients who received diaphragm-protective in addition to lung-protective ventilation strategy and took into account the results of central nervous system assessment and respiratory gas mixture leakage near endotracheal tube during weaning from mechanical ventilation. The primary endpoint was the frequency of reintubations, the secon­dary endpoint was the frequency of complications (tracheostomy). 82 patients were included in the data analysis. Patients were divided into age subgroups: subgroup 1 – children 1 month – 1 year; subgroup – children 1–3 years; subgroup 3 – children 3–6 years; subgroup 4 – children 6–13 years; subgroup 5 – children 13–18 years. Results and Discussion. The frequency of reintubations in patients of the age subgroup 1 was reduced in group II to 5.3 % compared with 22.7 % in group I (p = 0.02), which was accompanied by a higher frequency of elective tracheostomy (before the first attempt of weaning from mechanical ventilation) which was 11 % in comparison with 0 %, p = 0.001). The frequency of reintubations in the age subgroup 2 was reduced to 5.9 % in group II vs 20 % in group I (p = 0.04), and elective tracheostomy was performed in 18 % patients in group II vs 5 % patients in group I (p = 0.05). There were no significant differences in the frequency of reintubations among patients in the age subgroup 3 (14.2 % in group I vs 11.1 % in group II, p = 0.31); in the age subgroup 4 (13 % vs 17 %, p = 0.19); the age subgroup 5 (6 % vs 7 %, p = 0.72).

scholarly journals Patients with uninjured lungs may also benefit from lung-protective ventilator settings

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 2040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Alencar ◽  
Vittorio D'Angelo ◽  
Rachel Carmona ◽  
Marcus J Schultz ◽  
Ary Serpa Neto
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Protective Ventilation ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation ◽  
Positive End Expiratory Pressure ◽  
Ventilator Induced Lung Injury ◽  
Life Saving ◽  
Indispensable Tool ◽  
Ventilator Settings

Although mechanical ventilation is a life-saving strategy in critically ill patients and an indispensable tool in patients under general anesthesia for surgery, it also acts as a double-edged sword. Indeed, ventilation is increasingly recognized as a potentially dangerous intrusion that has the potential to harm lungs, in a condition known as ‘ventilator-induced lung injury’ (VILI). So-called ‘lung-protective’ ventilator settings aiming at prevention of VILI have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and, over the last few years, there has been increasing interest in possible benefit of lung-protective ventilation in patients under ventilation for reasons other than ARDS. Patients without ARDS could benefit from tidal volume reduction during mechanical ventilation. However, it is uncertain whether higher levels of positive end-expiratory pressure could benefit these patients as well. Finally, recent evidence suggests that patients without ARDS should receive low driving pressures during ventilation.

Assisted Ventilation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2015 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonne Doorduin ◽  
Christer A. Sinderby ◽  
Jennifer Beck ◽  
Johannes G. van der Hoeven ◽  
Leo M. A. Heunks
Keyword(s):  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Tidal Volume ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Transpulmonary Pressure ◽  
Assisted Ventilation ◽  
Protective Ventilation ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation ◽  
Respiratory Variability

Abstract Background: In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the use of assisted mechanical ventilation is a subject of debate. Assisted ventilation has benefits over controlled ventilation, such as preserved diaphragm function and improved oxygenation. Therefore, higher level of “patient control” of ventilator assist may be preferable in ARDS. However, assisted modes may also increase the risk of high tidal volumes and lung-distending pressures. The current study aims to quantify how differences in freedom to control the ventilator affect lung-protective ventilation, breathing pattern variability, and patient–ventilator interaction. Methods: Twelve patients with ARDS were ventilated in a randomized order with assist pressure control ventilation (PCV), pressure support ventilation (PSV), and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA). Transpulmonary pressure, tidal volume, diaphragm electrical activity, and patient–ventilator interaction were measured. Respiratory variability was assessed using the coefficient of variation of tidal volume. Results: During inspiration, transpulmonary pressure was slightly lower with NAVA (10.3 ± 0.7, 11.2 ± 0.7, and 9.4 ± 0.7 cm H2O for PCV, PSV, and NAVA, respectively; P < 0.01). Tidal volume was similar between modes (6.6 [5.7 to 7.0], 6.4 [5.8 to 7.0], and 6.0 [5.6 to 7.3] ml/kg for PCV, PSV, and NAVA, respectively), but respiratory variability was higher with NAVA (8.0 [6.4 to 10.0], 7.1 [5.9 to 9.0], and 17.0 [12.0 to 36.1] % for PCV, PSV, and NAVA, respectively; P < 0.001). Patient–ventilator interaction improved with NAVA (6 [5 to 8] % error) compared with PCV (29 [14 to 52] % error) and PSV (12 [9 to 27] % error); P < 0.0001. Conclusion: In patients with mild-to-moderate ARDS, increasing freedom to control the ventilator maintains lung-protective ventilation in terms of tidal volume and lung-distending pressure, but it improves patient–ventilator interaction and preserves respiratory variability.

scholarly journals Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS

2021 ◽  
pp. 088506662110241
Author(s):  
Pedro David Wendel Garcia ◽  
Daniel Andrea Hofmaenner ◽  
Silvio D. Brugger ◽  
Claudio T. Acevedo ◽  
Jan Bartussek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Closed Loop ◽  
Conventional Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Protective Ventilation ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Ventilation Time ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation Time

Background: Lung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes. Method: Prospective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH2O, peak pressure <30 cmH2O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min. Results: Forty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO2/ FiO2 ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH2O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Among critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.

scholarly journals Lung-protective mechanical ventilation for patients undergoing abdominal laparoscopic surgeries: a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Trung Kien Nguyen ◽  
Viet Luong Nguyen ◽  
Truong Giang Nguyen ◽  
Duc Hanh Mai ◽  
Ngoc Quynh Nguyen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Arterial Oxygen ◽  
Lung Protective Ventilation ◽  
Pulmonary Mechanics ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Protective Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Postoperative Atelectasis ◽  
Lung Protective Mechanical Ventilation

Abstract Background Pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position in laparoscopic surgeries could contribute to postoperative pulmonary dysfunction. In recent years, intraoperative lung-protective mechanical ventilation (LPV) has been reportedly able to attenuate ventilator-induced lung injuries (VILI). Our objectives were to test the hypothesis that LPV could improve intraoperative oxygenation function, pulmonary mechanics and early postoperative atelectasis in laparoscopic surgeries. Methods In this randomized controlled clinical trial, 62 patients indicated for elective abdominal laparoscopic surgeries with an expected duration of greater than 2 h were randomly assigned to receive either lung-protective ventilation (LPV) with a tidal volume (Vt) of 7 ml kg− 1 ideal body weight (IBW), 10 cmH2O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) combined with regular recruitment maneuvers (RMs) or conventional ventilation (CV) with a Vt of 10 ml kg− 1 IBW, 0 cmH2O in PEEP and no RMs. The primary endpoints were the changes in the ratio of PaO2 to FiO2 (P/F). The secondary endpoints were the differences between the two groups in PaO2, alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient (A-aO2), intraoperative pulmonary mechanics and the incidence of atelectasis detected on chest x-ray on the first postoperative day. Results In comparison to CV group, the intraoperative P/F and PaO2 in LPV group were significantly higher while the intraoperative A-aO2 was clearly lower. Cdyn and Cstat at all the intraoperative time points in LPV group were significantly higher compared to CV group (p < 0.05). There were no differences in the incidence of atelectasis on day one after surgery between the two groups. Conclusions Lung protective mechanical ventilation significantly improved intraoperative pulmonary oxygenation function and pulmonary compliance in patients experiencing various abdominal laparoscopic surgeries, but it could not ameliorate early postoperative atelectasis and oxygenation function on the first day after surgery. Trial registration https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/identifier: NCT04546932 (09/05/2020).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document