Surface EMG-based Quantification of Inspiratory Effort: A Quantitative Comparison with Pes

Background Inspiratory patient effort under assisted mechanical ventilation is an important quantity for assessing patient-ventilator interaction and recognizing over and under assistance. An established clinical standard is respiratory muscle pressure Pmus, derived from esophageal pressure (Pes), which requires the correct placement and calibration of an esophageal balloon catheter. Surface electromyography (sEMG) of the respiratory muscles represents a promising and straightforward alternative technique, enabling non-invasive monitoring of patient activity. Methods A prospective observational study was conducted with patients under assisted mechanical ventilation, who were scheduled for elective bronchoscopy. Airway flow and pressure, esophageal/gastric pressures and sEMG of the diaphragm and intercostal muscles were recorded at four levels of pressure support ventilation. Patient efforts were quantified via the Pmus–time product (PTPmus), the transdiaphragmatic pressure–time product (PTPdi) and the EMG–time products (ETP) of the two sEMG channels. To improve the signal-to-noise ratio, a method for automatically selecting the more informative of the sEMG channels was investigated. Correlation between ETP and PTPmus was assessed by determining a neuromechanical conversion factor KEMG between the two quantities. Moreover, it was investigated whether this scalar can be reliably determined from airway pressure during occlusion maneuvers, thus allowing to quantify inspiratory effort based solely on sEMG measurements. Results In total, 62 patients with heterogeneous pulmonary diseases were enrolled in the study, 43 of wich were included in the data analysis. The ETP of the two sEMG channels was well correlated with PTPmus (r=0.79±0.25 and r=0.84±0.16 for diaphragm and intercostal recordings, respectively). The proposed automatic channel selection method improved correlation with PTPmus (r=0.87±0.09). The neuromechanical conversion factor obtained by fitting ETP to PTPmus varied widely between patients (KEMG=4.32±3.73 cmH2O/μV) and was highly correlated with the scalar determined during occlusions (r=0.95, p<.001). The occlusion-based method for deriving PTPmus from ETP showed a breath-wise deviation to PTPmus of 0.43±1.73 cmH2Os across all datasets. Conclusion These results support the use of surface electromyography as a reliable non-invasive alternative for monitoring breath-by-breath inspiratory effort of patients under assisted mechanical ventilation.

Flow Index accurately identifies breaths with low or high inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation

Background Flow Index, a numerical expression of the shape of the inspiratory flow-time waveform recorded during pressure support ventilation, is associated with patient inspiratory effort. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of Flow Index in detecting high or low inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation and to establish cutoff values for the Flow index to identify these conditions. The secondary aim was to compare the performance of Flow index,of breathing pattern parameters and of airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) in detecting high or low inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation. Methods Data from 24 subjects was included in the analysis, accounting for a total of 702 breaths. Breaths with high inspiratory effort were defined by a pressure developed by inspiratory muscles (Pmusc) greater than 10 cmH2O while breaths with low inspiratory effort were defined by a Pmusc lower than 5 cmH2O. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of Flow Index and respiratory rate, tidal volume,respiratory rate over tidal volume and P0.1 were analyzed and compared to identify breaths with low or high inspiratory effort. Results Pmusc, P0.1, Pressure Time Product and Flow Index differed between breaths with high, low and intermediate inspiratory effort, while RR, RR/VT and VT/kg of IBW did not differ in a statistically significant way. A Flow index higher than 4.5 identified breaths with high inspiratory effort [AUC 0.89 (CI 95% 0.85–0.93)], a Flow Index lower than 2.6 identified breaths with low inspiratory effort [AUC 0.80 (CI 95% 0.76–0.83)]. Conclusions Flow Index is accurate in detecting high and low spontaneous inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation.

Automatic Adjustment of the Inspiratory Trigger and Cycling-Off Criteria Improved Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony During Pressure Support Ventilation

Background: Patient-ventilator asynchrony is common during pressure support ventilation (PSV) because of the constant cycling-off criteria and variation of respiratory system mechanical properties in individual patients. Automatic adjustment of inspiratory triggers and cycling-off criteria based on waveforms might be a useful tool to improve patient-ventilator asynchrony during PSV.Method: Twenty-four patients were enrolled and were ventilated using PSV with different cycling-off criteria of 10% (PS10), 30% (PS30), 50% (PS50), and automatic adjustment PSV (PSAUTO). Patient-ventilator interactions were measured.Results: The total asynchrony index (AI) and NeuroSync index were consistently lower in PSAUTO when compared with PS10, PS30, and PS50, (P &lt; 0.05). The benefit of PSAUTO in reducing the total AI was mainly because of the reduction of the micro-AI but not the macro-AI. PSAUTO significantly improved the relative cycling-off error when compared with prefixed controlled PSV (P &lt; 0.05). PSAUTO significantly reduced the trigger error and inspiratory effort for the trigger when compared with a prefixed trigger. However, total inspiratory effort, breathing patterns, and respiratory drive were not different among modes.Conclusions: When compared with fixed cycling-off criteria, an automatic adjustment system improved patient-ventilator asynchrony without changes in breathing patterns during PSV. The automatic adjustment system could be a useful tool to titrate more personalized mechanical ventilation.

Impact of different frequencies of controlled breath and pressure-support levels during biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation on the lung and diaphragm in experimental mild acute respiratory distress syndrome

Background We hypothesized that a decrease in frequency of controlled breaths during biphasic positive airway pressure (BIVENT), associated with an increase in spontaneous breaths, whether pressure support (PSV)-assisted or not, would mitigate lung and diaphragm damage in mild experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Materials and methods Wistar rats received Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide intratracheally. After 24 hours, animals were randomly assigned to: 1) BIVENT-100+PSV0%: airway pressure (Phigh) adjusted to VT = 6 mL/kg and frequency of controlled breaths (f) = 100 bpm; 2) BIVENT-50+PSV0%: Phigh adjusted to VT = 6 mL/kg and f = 50 bpm; 3) BIVENT-50+PSV50% (PSV set to half the Phigh reference value, i.e., PSV50%); or 4) BIVENT-50+PSV100% (PSV equal to Phigh reference value, i.e., PSV100%). Positive end-expiratory pressure (Plow) was equal to 5 cmH2O. Nonventilated animals were used for lung and diaphragm histology and molecular biology analysis. Results BIVENT-50+PSV0%, compared to BIVENT-100+PSV0%, reduced the diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) score, the expression of amphiregulin (marker of alveolar stretch) and muscle atrophy F-box (marker of diaphragm atrophy). In BIVENT-50 groups, the increase in PSV (BIVENT-50+PSV50% versus BIVENT-50+PSV100%) yielded better lung mechanics and less alveolar collapse, interstitial edema, cumulative DAD score, as well as gene expressions associated with lung inflammation, epithelial and endothelial cell damage in lung tissue, and muscle ring finger protein 1 (marker of muscle proteolysis) in diaphragm. Transpulmonary peak pressure (Ppeak,L) and pressure–time product per minute (PTPmin) at Phigh were associated with lung damage, while increased spontaneous breathing at Plow did not promote lung injury. Conclusion In the ARDS model used herein, during BIVENT, the level of PSV and the phase of the respiratory cycle in which the inspiratory effort occurs affected lung and diaphragm damage. Partitioning of inspiratory effort and transpulmonary pressure in spontaneous breaths at Plow and Phigh is required to minimize VILI.

High risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury in COVID-19 with frequently encountered spontaneous breathing patterns: a computational modelling study

Background There is on-going controversy regarding the potential for increased respiratory effort to generate patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. However, direct clinical evidence linking increased inspiratory effort to lung injury is scarce. We adapted a computational simulator of cardiopulmonary pathophysiology to quantify the mechanical forces that could lead to P-SILI at different levels of respiratory effort. In accordance with recent data, the simulator parameters were manually adjusted to generate a population of 10 patients that recapitulate clinical features exhibited by certain COVID-19 patients, i.e., severe hypoxaemia combined with relatively well-preserved lung mechanics, being treated with supplemental oxygen. Results Simulations were conducted at tidal volumes (VT) and respiratory rates (RR) of 7 ml/kg and 14 breaths/min (representing normal respiratory effort) and at VT/RR of 7/20, 7/30, 10/14, 10/20 and 10/30 ml/kg / breaths/min. While oxygenation improved with higher respiratory efforts, significant increases in multiple indicators of the potential for lung injury were observed at all higher VT/RR combinations tested. Pleural pressure swing increased from 12.0 ± 0.3 cmH2O at baseline to 33.8 ± 0.4 cmH2O at VT/RR of 7 ml/kg/30 breaths/min and to 46.2 ± 0.5 cmH2O at 10 ml/kg/30 breaths/min. Transpulmonary pressure swing increased from 4.7 ± 0.1 cmH2O at baseline to 17.9 ± 0.3 cmH2O at VT/RR of 7 ml/kg/30 breaths/min and to 24.2 ± 0.3 cmH2O at 10 ml/kg/30 breaths/min. Total lung strain increased from 0.29 ± 0.006 at baseline to 0.65 ± 0.016 at 10 ml/kg/30 breaths/min. Mechanical power increased from 1.6 ± 0.1 J/min at baseline to 12.9 ± 0.2 J/min at VT/RR of 7 ml/kg/30 breaths/min, and to 24.9 ± 0.3 J/min at 10 ml/kg/30 breaths/min. Driving pressure increased from 7.7 ± 0.2 cmH2O at baseline to 19.6 ± 0.2 cmH2O at VT/RR of 7 ml/kg/30 breaths/min, and to 26.9 ± 0.3 cmH2O at 10 ml/kg/30 breaths/min. Conclusions Our results suggest that the forces generated by increased inspiratory effort commonly seen in COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure are comparable with those that have been associated with ventilator-induced lung injury during mechanical ventilation. Respiratory efforts in these patients should be carefully monitored and controlled to minimise the risk of lung injury.

Patient-Self Inflicted Lung Injury: A Practical Review

Patients with severe lung injury usually have a high respiratory drive, resulting in intense inspiratory effort that may even worsen lung damage by several mechanisms gathered under the name “patient-self inflicted lung injury” (P-SILI). Even though no clinical study has yet demonstrated that a ventilatory strategy to limit the risk of P-SILI can improve the outcome, the concept of P-SILI relies on sound physiological reasoning, an accumulation of clinical observations and some consistent experimental data. In this review, we detail the main pathophysiological mechanisms by which the patient’s respiratory effort could become deleterious: excessive transpulmonary pressure resulting in over-distension; inhomogeneous distribution of transpulmonary pressure variations across the lung leading to cyclic opening/closing of nondependent regions and pendelluft phenomenon; increase in the transvascular pressure favoring the aggravation of pulmonary edema. We also describe potentially harmful patient-ventilator interactions. Finally, we discuss in a practical way how to detect in the clinical setting situations at risk for P-SILI and to what extent this recognition can help personalize the treatment strategy.

Flow Index: a novel, non-invasive, continuous, quantitative method to evaluate patient inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation

Background The evaluation of patient effort is pivotal during pressure support ventilation, but a non-invasive, continuous, quantitative method to assess patient inspiratory effort is still lacking. We hypothesized that the concavity of the inspiratory flow-time waveform could be useful to estimate patient’s inspiratory effort. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the shape of the inspiratory flow, as quantified by a numeric indicator, could be associated with inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation. Methods Twenty-four patients in pressure support ventilation were enrolled. A mathematical relationship describing the decay pattern of the inspiratory flow profile was developed. The parameter hypothesized to estimate effort was named Flow Index. Esophageal pressure, airway pressure, airflow, and volume waveforms were recorded at three support levels (maximum, minimum and baseline). The association between Flow Index and reference measures of patient effort (pressure time product and pressure generated by respiratory muscles) was evaluated using linear mixed effects models adjusted for tidal volume, respiratory rate and respiratory rate/tidal volume. Results Flow Index was different at the three pressure support levels and all group comparisons were statistically significant. In all tested models, Flow Index was independently associated with patient effort (p < 0.001). Flow Index prediction of inspiratory effort agreed with esophageal pressure-based methods. Conclusions Flow Index is associated with patient inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation, and may provide potentially useful information for setting inspiratory support and monitoring patient-ventilator interactions.

EXPRESS: Inspiratory flow patterns with dry powder inhalers of low and medium flow resistance in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension

Inhalation profiles to support use of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) for drug delivery in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have not been reported. We aimed to evaluate the inspiratory flow pattern associated with low and medium flow resistance DPI devices (RS01-L, RS01-M, respectively) in patients with PAH. This single-center study enrolled patients with PAH associated with connective tissue disease (aPAH,n=10) and idiopathic PAH (iPAH,n=10) to measure the following inhalation parameters: inspiratory effort (kPa), peak inspiratory flow rate (L/min), inhaled volume (L), and flow increase rate (L/s2) using the two devices. We identified a trend toward higher mPAP in the iPAH group (50±13mmHg vs. 40±11mmHg in aPAH;p=0.077). On average, peak inspiratory flow rate was higher with RS01-L vs. RS01-M (84±19.7 L/min vs. 70.4±13.2 L/min; p=0.015). In the overall group, no differences between RS01-L and RS01-M were observed for inhaled volume, inspiratory effort, or flow increase rate. Inhaled volume with RS01-L was higher in aPAH vs iPAH patients: 1.6±0.4L vs. 1.3±0.2L;p=0.042. For the RS01-L, inhaled volume correlated with forced expiratory volume in one second (r=0.460, p=0.030) and forced vital capacity (r=0.50,p=0.015). In patients with aPAH using RS01-L, both inspiratory effort and flow increase rate were highly correlated with pulmonary vascular compliance (r=0.903,p=0.0001 and r=0.906,p=0.001; respectively); while with RS01-M, inspiratory effort was highly correlated with pulmonary vascular compliance (r=0.81,p=0.001). Our data suggest that the use of RS01-L and RS01-M DPI devices allowed adequate inspiratory flow in PAH patients. The correlation between flow increase rate and pulmonary vascular compliance in aPAH deserves further investigation.