Randomized crossover trial to compare driving pressures in a closed-loop and a conventional mechanical ventilation mode in pediatric patients.
adaptive support ventilation (ASV)
closed-loop
driving pressure (DP)
mechanical ventilation
pediatric intensive care unit (PICU)
Journal
Pediatric pulmonology
ISSN: 1099-0496
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Pulmonol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8510590
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
revised:
17
06
2021
received:
07
01
2021
accepted:
22
06
2021
pubmed:
23
7
2021
medline:
25
11
2021
entrez:
22
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In mechanically ventilated patients, driving pressure (ΔP) represents the dynamic stress applied to the respiratory system and is related to ICU mortality. An evolution of the Adaptive Support Ventilation algorithm (ASV® 1.1) minimizes inspiratory pressure in addition to minimizing the work of breathing. We hypothesized that ASV 1.1 would result in lower ΔP than the ΔP measured in APV-CMV (controlled mandatory ventilation with adaptive pressure ventilation) mode with physician-tailored settings. The aim of this randomized crossover trial was therefore to compare ΔP in ASV 1.1 with ΔP in physician-tailored APV-CMV mode. Pediatric patients admitted to the PICU with heterogeneous-lung disease were enrolled if they were ventilated invasively with no detectable respiratory effort, hemodynamic instability, or significant airway leak around the endotracheal tube. We compared two 60-min periods of ventilation in APV-CMV and ASV 1.1, which were determined by randomization and separated by 30-min washout periods. Settings were adjusted to reach the same minute ventilation in both modes. ΔP was calculated as the difference between plateau pressure and total PEEP measured using end-inspiratory and end-expiratory occlusions, respectively. There were 26 patients enrolled with a median age of 16 (9-25 [IQR]) months. The median ΔP for these patients was 10.4 (8.5-12.1 [IQR]) and 12.4 (10.5-15.3 [IQR]) cmH2O in the ASV 1.1 and APV-CMV periods, respectively (p < .001). The median tidal volume (VT) selected by the ASV 1.1 algorithm was 6.4 (5.1-7.3 [IQR]) ml/kg and RR was 41 (33 50 [IQR]) b/min, whereas the median of the same values for the APV-CMV period was 7.9 (6.8-8.3 [IQR]) ml/kg and 31 (26-41[IQR]) b/min, respectively. In both ASV 1.1 and APV-CMV modes, the highest ΔP was used to ventilate those patients with restrictive lung conditions at baseline. In this randomized crossover trial, ΔP in ASV 1.1 was lower compared to ΔP in physician-tailored APV-CMV mode in pediatric patients with different lung conditions. The use of ASV 1.1 may therefore result in continued, safe ventilation in a heterogeneous pediatric patient group.
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04541199']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3035-3043Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Santschi M, Jouvet P, Leclerc F, et al. Acute lung injury in children: Therapeutic practice and feasibility of international clinical trials*. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2010;11(6):681-689.
Group TPALICC. Pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome: Consensus recommendations from the pediatric acute lung injury consensus conference*. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015;16(5):428-439.
Ferguson ND, Fan E, Camporota L, et al. The Berlin definition of ARDS: an expanded rationale, justification, and supplementary material. Intensive Care Med. October 01 2012;38(10):1573-1582.
Kneyber MCJ, de Luca D, Calderini E, et al. Recommendations for mechanical ventilation of critically ill children from the Paediatric Mechanical Ventilation Consensus Conference (PEMVECC). Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(12):1764-1780.
Amato MB, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):747-755.
Imber DA, Thomas NJ, Yehya N. Association Between Tidal Volumes Adjusted for Ideal Body Weight and Outcomes in Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome*. Pediatric Critical Care Med. 2019;20(3):e145-e153.
ISO technical committee. Lung ventilators and related equipment - Vocabulary and semantics. ISO. Accessed 03.02.2021 2021;2021:6691591<Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/51164.html
Otis AB, Fenn WO, Rahn H. Mechanics of Breathing in Man. J Appl Physiol. 1950;2(11):592-607.
Mead J. The control of the respiratory frequency. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1963;109(2):724-729.
Rohrer F Physiologie der Atembewegung. In: Bethe A, Embden G, v. Bergmann G, eds. Handbuch der Normalen und Pathologischen Physiologie: Zweiter Band Atmung; Aufnahme und Abgabe Gasförmiger Stoffe. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1925:70-127.
Arnal J-M, Saoli M, Garnero A. Airway and transpulmonary driving pressures and mechanical powers selected by INTELLiVENT-ASV in passive, mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Heart & Lung: The Journal of Cardiopulmonary and Acute Care. 2019;49:427-434.
Laubscher TP, Frutiger A, Fanconi S, Jutzi H, Brunner JX. Automatic selection of tidal volume, respiratory frequency and minute ventilation in intubated ICU patients as start up procedure for closed-loop controlled ventilation. Int J Clin Monit Comput. Feb 1994;11(1):19-30.
Weiss SL, Peters MJ, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-Associated Organ Dysfunction in Children. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. 2020;21(2):e52-e106.
Jones B, Kenward MG. Design and analysis of cross-over trials. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1998.
Hamilton-Medical. Proximal flow sensor technical specifications Available at: https://www.hamilton-medical.com/dam/jcr:b8ef47c8-c2fa-47d5-8378-7fb9198ff7fc/Flow-sensor-tech-specs-EN-689568.00.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2021.
Respironics. Capnostat mainstream CO2 sensor technical specifications. Available at: https://www.philips.com/static/oem-respironics/capnostatMainstreamCO2sensor.html. Accessed 28 April 2021.
Iotti GA, Braschi A, Brunner JX, et al. Respiratory mechanics by least squares fitting in mechanically ventilated patients: applications during paralysis and during pressure support ventilation. Intensive Care Med. May 01 1995;21(5):406-413.
Lourens MS, van den Berg B, Aerts JG, Verbraak AF, Hoogsteden HC, Bogaard JM. Expiratory time constants in mechanically ventilated patients with and without COPD. Intensive Care Med. Nov 2000;26(11):1612-1618.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. May 01 2007;39(2):175-191.
Newth CJL, Stretton M, Deakers TW, Hammer J. Assessment of pulmonary function in the early phase of ARDS in pediatric patients. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1997;23(3):169-175.
Straney L, Clements A, Parslow RC, et al. Paediatric Index of Mortality 3: An Updated Model for Predicting Mortality in Pediatric Intensive Care*. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2013;14(7):673-681.
Tonetti T, Vasques F, Rapetti F, et al. Driving pressure and mechanical power: new targets for VILI prevention. Ann Transl Med. Jul 2017;5(14):286.
Khemani RG, Conti D, Alonzo TA, Bart RD, Newth CJL. Effect of tidal volume in children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med. August 01 2009;35(8):1428-1437.
Bruhn ABD, Riquelme F, Varas J, et al. Tidal volume is a major determinant of cyclic recruitment-derecruitment in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Minerva Anestesiol. 2011;77(4):418-426.
de Jager P, Burgerhof JGM, van Heerde M, Albers MJIJ, Markhorst DG, Kneyber MCJ. Tidal Volume and Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies*. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(12):2461-2472.
Lellouche F, Delorme M, Brochard L. Impact of Respiratory Rate and Dead Space in the Current Era of Lung Protective Mechanical Ventilation. Chest. Jul 2020;158(1):45-47.
Wong JJM, Lee SW, Tan HL, et al. Lung-Protective Mechanical Ventilation Strategies in Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2020;21(8):720-728.
Ilia S, van Schelven PD, Koopman AA, et al. Effect of Endotracheal Tube Size, Respiratory System Mechanics, and Ventilator Settings on Driving Pressure. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2019 Online First.