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

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.

F1000Research ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 1293
Author(s):  
Manasi Singh ◽  
A. Murat Kaynar

An evaluation of a recent study by Serpa Neto A, Cardoso SO & Manetta JA et al: Association between Uses of Lung-Protective Ventilation with Lower Tidal Volume and Clinical Outcomes among Patients without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome a Meta-analysis. JAMA, October 24/31, 2012—Vol 308, No. 16. PMID: 23093163.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jed Lipes ◽  
Azadeh Bojmehrani ◽  
Francois Lellouche

Protective ventilation with low tidal volume has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients suffering from acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Low tidal volume ventilation is associated with particular clinical challenges and is therefore often underutilized as a therapeutic option in clinical practice. Despite some potential difficulties, data have been published examining the application of protective ventilation in patients without lung injury. We will briefly review the physiologic rationale for low tidal volume ventilation and explore the current evidence for protective ventilation in patients without lung injury. In addition, we will explore some of the potential reasons for its underuse and provide strategies to overcome some of the associated clinical challenges.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document