Effect of Ventilatory Settings on Accuracy of Cardiac Output Measurement Using Partial CO2Rebreathing

Background Recently, a new device has been developed to measure cardiac output noninvasively using partial carbon dioxide (CO(2)) rebreathing. Because this technique uses CO(2) rebreathing, the authors suspected that ventilatory settings, such as tidal volume and ventilatory mode, would affect its accuracy: they conducted this study to investigate which parameters affect the accuracy of the measurement. Methods The authors enrolled 25 pharmacologically paralyzed adult post-cardiac surgery patients. They applied six ventilatory settings in random order: (1) volume-controlled ventilation with inspired tidal volume (V(T)) of 12 ml/kg; (2) volume-controlled ventilation with V(T) of 6 ml/kg; (3) pressure-controlled ventilation with V(T) of 12 ml/kg; (4) pressure-controlled ventilation with V(T) of 6 ml/kg; (5) inspired oxygen fraction of 1.0; and (6) high positive end-expiratory pressure. Then, they changed the maximum or minimum length of rebreathing loop with V(T) set at 12 ml/kg. After establishing steady-state conditions (15 min), they measured cardiac output using CO(2) rebreathing and thermodilution via a pulmonary artery catheter. Finally, they repeated the measurements during pressure support ventilation, when the patients had restored spontaneous breathing. The correlation between two methods was evaluated with linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Results When VT was set at 12 ml/kg, cardiac output with the CO(2) rebreathing technique correlated moderately with that measured by thermodilution (y = 1.02x, R = 0.63; bias, 0.28 l/min; limits of agreement, -1.78 to +2.34 l/min), regardless of ventilatory mode, oxygen concentration, or positive end-expiratory pressure. However, at a lower VT of 6 ml/kg, the CO(2) rebreathing technique underestimated cardiac out-put compared with thermodilution (y = 0.70x; R = 0.70; bias, -1.66 l/min; limits of agreement, -3.90 to +0.58 l/min). When the loop was fully retracted, the CO(2) rebreathing technique overestimated cardiac output. Conclusions Although cardiac output was underreported at small VT values, cardiac output measured by the CO(2) rebreathing technique correlates fairly with that measured by the thermodilution method.

Download Full-text

Combined Ventilation Of Two Subjects With A Single Mechanical Ventilator Using A New Medical Device: An In Vitro Study

10.1101/2021.01.06.425652 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Ignacio Lugones ◽

Matias Ramos ◽

Maria Fernanda Biancolini ◽

Roberto Eduardo Orofino Giambastiani

Keyword(s):

Tidal Volume ◽

Lung Compliance ◽

Positive End Expiratory Pressure ◽

Controlled Ventilation ◽

Pressure Controlled Ventilation ◽

Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽

Ventilation Modes ◽

The Subject ◽

Volume Controlled ◽

Pressure Controlled

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV2 pandemic has created a sudden lack of ventilators. DuplicAR® is a novel device that allows simultaneous and independent ventilation of two subjects with a single ventilator. The aims of this study are: a) to determine the efficacy of DuplicAR® to independently regulate the peak and positive-end expiratory pressures in each subject, both under pressure-controlled ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation, and b) to determine the ventilation mode in which DuplicAR® presents the best performance and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two test lungs are connected to a single ventilator using DuplicAR®. Three experimental stages are established: 1) two identical subjects, 2) two subjects with the same weight but different lung compliance, and 3) two subjects with different weight and lung compliance. In each stage, the test lungs are ventilated in two ventilation modes. The positive-end expiratory pressure requirements are increased successively in one of the subjects. The goal is to achieve a tidal volume of 7 ml/kg for each subject in all different stages through manipulation of the ventilator and the DuplicAR® controllers. RESULTS: DuplicAR® allows adequate ventilation of two subjects with different weight and/or lung compliance and/or PEEP requirements. This is achieved by adjusting the total tidal volume for both subjects (in volume-controlled ventilation) or the highest peak pressure needed (in pressure-controlled ventilation) along with the basal positive-end expiratory pressure on the ventilator, and simultaneously manipulating the DuplicAR® controllers to decrease the tidal volume or the peak pressure in the subject that needs less and/or to increase the positive-end expiratory pressure in the subject that needs more. While ventilatory goals can be achieved in any of the ventilation modes, DuplicAR® performs better in pressure-controlled ventilation, as changes experienced in the variables of one subject do not modify the other one. CONCLUSIONS: DuplicAR® is an effective tool to manage the peak inspiratory pressure and the positive-end expiratory pressure independently in two subjects connected to a single ventilator. The driving pressure can be adjusted to meet the requirements of subjects with different weight and lung compliance. Pressure-controlled ventilation has advantages over volume-controlled ventilation and is therefore the recommended ventilation mode.

Download Full-text

Combined Ventilation of Two Subjects with a Single Mechanical Ventilator Using a New Medical Device: An In Vitro Study

Anesthesiology Research and Practice ◽

10.1155/2021/6691591 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Ignacio Lugones ◽

Matías Ramos ◽

María Fernanda Biancolini ◽

Roberto Orofino Giambastiani

Keyword(s):

Tidal Volume ◽

Ventilation Mode ◽

Positive End Expiratory Pressure ◽

Controlled Ventilation ◽

Pressure Controlled Ventilation ◽

Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽

Ventilation Modes ◽

The Subject ◽

Volume Controlled ◽

Pressure Controlled

Introduction. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created a sudden lack of ventilators. DuplicARⓇ is a novel device that allows simultaneous and independent ventilation of two subjects with a single ventilator. The aims of this study are (a) to determine the efficacy of DuplicARⓇ to independently regulate the peak and positive-end expiratory pressures in each subject, both under pressure-controlled ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation and (b) to determine the ventilation mode in which DuplicARⓇ presents the best performance and safety. Materials and Methods. Two test lungs are connected to a single ventilator using DuplicARⓇ. Three experimental stages are established: (1) two identical subjects, (2) two subjects with the same weight but different lung compliance, and (3) two subjects with different weights and lung compliances. In each stage, the test lungs are ventilated in two ventilation modes. The positive-end expiratory pressure requirements are increased successively in one of the subjects. The goal is to achieve a tidal volume of 7 ml/kg for each subject in all different stages through manipulation of the ventilator and the DuplicARⓇ controllers. Results. DuplicARⓇ allows adequate ventilation of two subjects with different weights and/or lung compliances and/or PEEP requirements. This is achieved by adjusting the total tidal volume for both subjects (in volume-controlled ventilation) or the highest peak pressure needed (in pressure-controlled ventilation) along with the basal positive-end expiratory pressure on the ventilator and simultaneously manipulating the DuplicARⓇ controllers to decrease the tidal volume or the peak pressure in the subject that needs less and/or to increase the positive-end expiratory pressure in the subject that needs more. While ventilatory goals can be achieved in any of the ventilation modes, DuplicARⓇ performs better in pressure-controlled ventilation, as changes experienced in the variables of one subject do not modify the other one. Conclusions. DuplicARⓇ is an effective tool to manage the peak inspiratory pressure and the positive-end expiratory pressure independently in two subjects connected to a single ventilator. The driving pressure can be adjusted to meet the requirements of subjects with different weights and lung compliances. Pressure-controlled ventilation has advantages over volume-controlled ventilation and is therefore the recommended ventilation mode.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10061276 ◽

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.

Download Full-text