Division of Paediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Paediatrics, Beatrix Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Internal Postal Code CA 62, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, The University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Respir Res. 2022 Jul 13;23(1):184. doi: 10.1186/s12931-022-02106-6.
Ventilator liberation is one of the most challenging aspects in patients with respiratory failure. Most patients are weaned through a transition from full to partial respiratory support, whereas some advocate using a continuous spontaneous ventilation (CSV). However, there is little scientific evidence supporting the practice of pediatric ventilator liberation, including the timing of onset of and the approach to weaning mode. We sought to explore differences in patient effort between a pressure controlled continuous mode of ventilation (PC-CMV) [in this cohort PC assist/control (PC-A/C)] with a reduced ventilator rate and CSV, and to study changes in patient effort with decreasing PS.
In this prospective physiology cross-over study, we randomized children < 5 years to first PC-A/C with a 25% reduction in ventilator rate, or CSV (continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] + PS). Patients were then crossed over to the other arm. Patient effort was measured by calculating inspiratory work of breathing (WOB) using the Campbell diagram (WOB), and by pressure-rate-product (PRP) and pressure-time-product (PTP). Respiratory inductance plethysmography (RIP) was used to calculate the phase angle. Measurements were obtained at baseline, during PC-A/C and CPAP + PS, and during decreasing set PS (maximum -6 cmHO).
Thirty-six subjects with a median age of 4.4 (IQR 1.5-11.9) months and median ventilation time of 4.9 (IQR 3.4-7.0) days were included. Nearly all patients (94.4%) were admitted with primary respiratory failure. WOB during baseline [0.67 (IQR 0.38-1.07) Joules/L] did not differ between CSV [0.49 (IQR 0.17-0.83) Joules/L] or PC-A/C [0.47 (IQR 0.17-1.15) Joules/L]. Neither PRP, PTP, ∆Pes nor phase angle was different between the two ventilator modes. Reducing pressure support resulted in a statistically significant increase in patient effort, albeit that these differences were clinically negligible.
Patient effort during pediatric ventilation liberation was not increased when patients were in a CSV mode of ventilation compared to a ventilator mode with a ventilator back-up rate. Reducing the level of PS did not lead to clinically relevant increases in patient effort. These data may aid in a better approach to pediatric ventilation liberation. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT05254691. Registered 24 February 2022.
在呼吸衰竭患者中,呼吸机撤离是最具挑战性的方面之一。大多数患者通过从完全呼吸支持到部分呼吸支持的过渡来脱机,而有些患者则主张使用持续自主通气(CSV)。然而,几乎没有科学证据支持儿科呼吸机撤离的实践,包括脱机模式的起始时间和方法。我们试图探讨压力控制持续通气模式(PC-CMV)[在本队列中为 PC 辅助/控制(PC-A/C)]与降低呼吸机率和 CSV 之间的患者努力差异,并研究随着 PS 降低患者努力的变化。
在这项前瞻性生理学交叉研究中,我们将<5 岁的儿童随机分配到首先接受 PC-A/C,呼吸机率降低 25%,或 CSV(持续气道正压通气[CPAP]+PS)。然后患者交叉到另一个臂。通过计算吸气功(WOB)使用 Campbell 图(WOB)、压力-速率乘积(PRP)和压力-时间乘积(PTP)来测量患者的努力。呼吸感应体容积描记术(RIP)用于计算相位角。在基线、PC-A/C 和 CPAP+PS 期间以及逐渐降低设定 PS(最大-6 cmHO)期间进行测量。
36 名中位年龄为 4.4(IQR 1.5-11.9)个月和中位通气时间为 4.9(IQR 3.4-7.0)天的受试者被纳入研究。几乎所有患者(94.4%)都因原发性呼吸衰竭入院。CSV 时的基线 WOB[0.67(IQR 0.38-1.07)焦耳/升]与 PC-A/C 时的 WOB[0.47(IQR 0.17-1.15)焦耳/升]无差异。两种通气模式之间的 PRP、PTP、△Pes 和相位角均无差异。降低压力支持导致患者努力明显增加,但这些差异在临床意义上可以忽略不计。
与呼吸机后备率的通气模式相比,儿童呼吸机撤离期间 CSV 通气模式下患者的努力并没有增加。降低 PS 水平不会导致患者努力的临床相关增加。这些数据可能有助于更好地处理儿科呼吸机撤离。临床试验注册clinicaltrials.gov NCT05254691。于 2022 年 2 月 24 日注册。