Influence of pressure- and flow-triggered synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation on inspiratory muscle work.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of pressure- and flow-triggered synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation on inspiratory muscle work.

DESIGN

Consecutive clinical, prospective, randomized trial.

SETTING

Medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a U.S. Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

PATIENTS

Eight patients recovering from acute respiratory failure of various etiologies.

INTERVENTIONS

Assist control, followed by randomized application of pressure- and flow-triggered synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation at 60%, 40%, 20% of the assist-control rate, and flow-triggered continuous positive airway pressure. A total of eight settings were maintained for 10 mins each.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Total work rate (joules/min), inspiratory muscle work (joules/L), and pressure time-product per breath (cm H2O-sec) were measured. During pressure- or flow-triggered synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation, total work rate increased as the mandatory rate was decreased. The method of ventilator triggering had a significant effect on the total work rate. With pressure-triggered synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation, the total work rate at 60% of the assist-control rate was similar to that with assist-control; whereas with flow-triggered synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation, this result was achieved at 40% of the assist-control rate. At a machine support level of 20%, total work rate with pressure-triggered synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation was significantly greater than with flow-triggered synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation. The method of ventilator triggering had no significant effect on the inspiratory muscle work of the mandatory breaths. This finding was in contrast to the effect on inspiratory muscle work of spontaneous breaths. With pressure-triggered synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation, inspiratory muscle work of the spontaneous breaths was greater than with the flow-triggered at machine support of 40% and 20%. With either pressure- or flow-triggered synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation, inspiratory muscle work of the mandatory breaths was not significantly different from that of the corresponding spontaneous breaths, except at the lower machine support levels with the pressure-triggered synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation. Pressure-time product followed a trend similar to that of inspiratory muscle work.

CONCLUSIONS

During synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation, the method of ventilator triggering has a significant effect on the total work rate and inspiratory muscle work of the spontaneous breaths, particularly at lower machine support levels. Conversely, the method of ventilator triggering has no significant effect on inspiratory muscle work of the mandatory breaths.