Prospective Observational Study to Evaluate the Effect of Different Levels of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure on Lung Mechanics in Patients with and without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

End-Expiratory Lung Volumes During Spontaneous Breathing Trials in Tracheostomized Subjects on Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation

BACKGROUND

The role of end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) during a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) in patients who were tracheostomized and on prolonged mechanical ventilation is unclear. This study aimed to assess EELV during a 60-min SBT and its correlation with weaning success.

METHODS

Enrolled subjects admitted to a weaning unit were measured for EELV and relevant parameters before and after the SBT.

RESULTS

Of the 44 enrolled subjects, 29 (66%) were successfully liberated, defined as not needing mechanical ventilation for 5 d. The success group had fewer subjects with chronic kidney disease (41% vs 73%, P = .044), stronger mean ± SD maximum inspiratory pressure (41.6 ± 10.4 vs 34.1 ± 7.1 cm H₂O; P = .02) and mean ± SD maximum expiratory pressure (46.9 ± 11.7 vs 35.3 ± 16.9 cm H₂O; P = .01) versus the failure group. Toward the end of the SBT, the success group had a significant increase in the mean ± SD EELV (before vs after: 1,278 ± 744 vs 1,493 ± 867 mL; P = .040) and a decrease in the mean ± SD rapid shallow breathing index (83.8 ± 39.4 vs 66.3 ± 29.4; P = .02), whereas there were no significant changes in these 2 parameters in the failure group. The Cox regression analysis showed that, at the beginning of SBT, a greater difference between EELV with a PEEP of 0 cm H₂O and with a PEEP of 5 cm H₂O was significantly correlated to a higher likelihood of weaning success. Toward the end of the SBT, a greater EELV level at a PEEP of 0 cm H₂O was also correlated with weaning success. Also, the greater difference of EELV at a PEEP of 0 cm H₂O between the beginning and the end of the SBT was also correlated with a shorter duration to weaning success.

CONCLUSIONS

The change in EELV during a 60-min SBT may be of prognostic value for liberation from prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients who had a tracheostomy. Our findings suggest a model to understand the underlying mechanism of failure of liberation from mechanical ventilation in these patients.

Assessment of different computing methods of inspiratory transpulmonary pressure in patients with multiple mechanical problems

While plateau airway pressure alone is an unreliable estimate of lung overdistension inspiratory transpulmonary pressure (PL) is an important parameter to reflect it in patients with ARDS and there is no concensus about which computation method should be used to calculate it. Recent studies suggest that different formulas may lead to different tidal volume and PEEP settings. The aim of this study is to compare 3 different inspiratory PL measurement method; direct measurement (PL_D), elastance derived (PL_E) and release derived (PL_R) methods in patients with multiple mechanical abnormalities. 34 patients were included in this prospective observational study. Measurements were obtained during volume controlled mechanical ventilation in sedated and paralyzed patients. During the study day airway and eosephageal pressures, flow, tidal volume were measured and elastance, inspiratory PL_E, PL_D and PL_R were calculated. Mean age of the patients was 67 ± 15 years and APACHE II score was 27 ± 7. Most frequent diagnosis of the patients were pneumonia (71%), COPD exacerbation(56%), pleural effusion (55%) and heart failure(50%). Mean plateau pressure of the patients was 22 ± 5 cmH₂O and mean respiratory system elastance was 36.7 ± 13 cmH₂O/L. E_L/E_RS% was 0.75 ± 0.35%. Mean expiratory transpulmonary pressure was 0.54 ± 7.7 cmH₂O (min: − 21, max: 12). Mean PL_E (18 ± 9 H₂O) was significantly higher than PL_D (13 ± 9 cmH₂O) and PL_R methods (11 ± 9 cmH₂O). There was a good aggreement and there was no bias between the measurements in Bland–Altman analysis. The estimated bias was similar between the PL_D and PL_E (− 3.12 ± 11 cmH₂O) and PL_E and PL_R (3.9 ± 10.9 cmH₂O) measurements. Our results suggest that standardization of calculation method of inspiratory PL is necessary before using it routinely to estimate alveolar overdistension.