Patient effort at a glance

A: Patient with little effort. Top: Volume Controlled Ventilation: airway pressure in cmH2O in yellow, constant flow in L/min in pink. Middle: Pressure controlled ventilation: airway pressure in cmH2O in yellow, decelerating flow in L/min in pink. Bottom: Esophageal pressure in cmH2O. B: Patient with high effort. Top: Volume Controlled Ventilation: airway pressure with convex negative deflection during trigger and first half of inspiration (blue arrow). Middle: Pressure controlled ventilation: airway pressure with negative deflection during the trigger (yellow arrow) and slight convex deflection (green arrow), concave deflection in the flow (orange arrow). Bottom: Convex deflection in esophageal pressure (grey arrow).

Effects on Lung Gas Volume, Respiratory Mechanics and Gas Exchange of a Closed-Circuit Suctioning System during Volume- and Pressure-Controlled Ventilation in ARDS Patients

Mechanically ventilated patients periodically require endotracheal suctioning. There are conflicting data regarding the loss of lung gas volume caused by the application of a negative pressure by closed-circuit suctioning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of suctioning performed by a closed-circuit system in ARDS patients during volume- or pressure-controlled ventilation. In this prospective crossover-design study, 18 ARDS patients were ventilated under volume and pressure control applied in random order. Gas exchange, respiratory mechanics and EIT-derived end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) before the suctioning manoeuvre and after 5, 15 and 30 min were recorded. The tidal volume and respiratory rate were similar in both ventilation modes; in volume control, the EELV decreased by 31 ± 23 mL, 5 min after the suctioning, but it remained similar after 15 and 30 min; the oxygenation, PaCO2 and respiratory system elastance did not change. In the pressure control, 5 min after suctioning, EELV decreased by 35 (26–46) mL, the PaO2/FiO2 did not change, while PaCO2 increased by 5 and 30 min after suctioning (45 (40–51) vs. 48 (43–52) and 47 (42–54) mmHg, respectively). Our results suggest minimal clinical advantages when a closed system is used in volume-controlled compared to pressure-controlled ventilation.

Simulated Ventilation of Two Patients With a Single Ventilator in a Pandemic Setting

Background: Simultaneous ventilation of two patients, e.g., due to a shortage of ventilators in a pandemic, may result in hypoventilation in one patient and hyperinflation in the other patient. Methods: In a simulation of double patient ventilation using artificial lungs with equal compliances (70mL∙mbar-1), we tried to voluntarily direct gas flow to one patient by using 3D-printed y-adapters and stenosis adapters during volume-, and pressure-controlled ventilation. Subsequently, we modified the model using a special one-way valve on the limited flow side and measured in pressure-controlled ventilation with the flow sensor adjusted on either side in a second and third setup. In the last setup, we also measured with different lung compliances.Results: Volume- or pressure-controlled ventilation using standard connection tubes with the same compliance in each lung resulted in comparable minute volumes in both lungs, even if one side was obstructed to 3mm (6.6±0.2vs.6.5±0.1L for volume-controlled ventilation, p=.25 continuous severe alarm and 7.4±0.1vs.6.1±0.1L for pressure-controlled ventilation, p=.02 no alarm). In the second setup, pressure-controlled ventilation resulted at a 3mm flow limitation in minute ventilation of 9.4±0.3vs3.5±0.1L∙min-1, p=.001. In a third setup using the special one-way valve and the flow sensor on the unobstructed side, pressure-controlled ventilation resulted at a 3mm flow limitation in minute ventilation of 7.4±0.2vs3±0L∙min-1, at the compliance of 70mL∙mbar-1 for both lungs, 7.2±0vs4.1±0L∙ min-1, at the compliances of 50 vs. 70mL∙mbar-1, and 7.2±0.2vs5.7±0L∙ min-1, at the compliance of 30 vs. 70mL∙mbar-1 (all p=.001).Conclusions: Overriding a modern intensive care ventilator's safety features are possible, thereby ventilating two lungs with one ventilator simultaneously in a laboratory simulation using 3D-printed y-adapters. Directing tidal volumes in different pulmonary conditions towards one lung using 3D-printed flow limiters with diameters <6mm was also possible. While this ventilation setting was technically feasible in a bench model, it would be volatile, if not dangerous in a clinical situation.

Hourly Analysis of Mechanical Ventilation Parameters in Critically Ill Adult Covid-19 Patients: Association with Mortality

Objective: there exists controversy about the pathophysiology and lung mechanics of COVID-19 associated ARDS, because some report severe hypoxemia with preserved respiratory system mechanics, contrasting with “classic” ARDS. We performed a detailed hourly analysis of the characteristics and time course of lung mechanics and biochemical analysis of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19-associated ARDS, comparing survivors and non-survivors.Methods and measurements: retrospective analysis of the data stored in the ICU information system of patients admitted in our hospital ICU that required invasive mechanical ventilation due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia between March 5th and April 30th, 2020. We compare respiratory system mechanics and gas exchange during the first ten days of IMV, discriminating volume and pressure controlled modes, between ICU survivors and non-survivors.Results: 140 patients were analyzed, analyzing 11,138 respiratory mechanics recordings. Global mortality was 38.6%. Multivariate analysis showed that age (OR 1,092, 95% (CI 1,014-1,176)), previous use of ACEI/ARBs (OR 4,612, (95% CI 1,19-17,84)) and need of renal replacement therapies (OR 10,15, (95% CI 1,58-65,11)) were associated with higher mortality. Respiratory variables start to diverge significantly between survivors and non-survivors after the 96 to 120 hours from mechanical ventilation initiation, particularly respiratory system compliance. In non survivors, mechanical power at 24 and 96 hs was higher regardless ventilatory mode. Conclusions: in patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and requiring mechanical ventilation, non survivors have different respiratory system mechanics than survivors in the first 10 days of ICU admission. We propose a checkpoint at 96-120 hs to assess patients` improvement or worsening in order to consider escalating to extracorporeal therapies.“TAKE HOME MESSAGE”: assessing respiratory mechanics in the first 96-120 hs from ICU admission could predict the outcome of Covid-19 patients under mechanical ventilation.

Modelling of the Cross Angle and its Impact on Pump Performance

A secondary swash plate angle, also known as a cross angle, has been used in the past to reduce flow ripple with great success. However, for the past two decades, research in this field has been scarce. In this paper, a pressure controlled 9-piston pump is investigated to determine the effects of the cross angle on commutation, acting forces and torques, as well as volumetric flow rate pulsations. A detailed description of the piston kinematics, the simulation model used, and the subsequent simulation results are presented in this contribution.