Adaptive mechanical ventilation with automated minimization of mechanical power—a pilot randomized cross-over study

Abstract

BackgroundAdaptive mechanical ventilation automatically adjusts respiratory rate (RR) and tidal volume (VT) to deliver the clinically desired minute ventilation, selecting RR and VT based on Otis’ equation on least work of breathing. However, the resulting VT may be relatively high, especially in patients with more compliant lungs. Therefore, a new mode of adaptive ventilation (adaptive ventilation mode 2, AVM2) was developed which automatically minimizes inspiratory power with the aim of ensuring lung-protective combinations of VT and RR. The aim of this study was to investigate whether AVM2 reduces VT, mechanical power, and driving pressure (ΔPstat) and provides similar gas exchange when compared to adaptive mechanical ventilation based on Otis’ equation.MethodsA prospective randomized cross-over study was performed in 20 critically ill patients on controlled mechanical ventilation, including 10 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Each patient underwent 1\xa0h of mechanical ventilation with AVM2 and 1\xa0h of adaptive mechanical ventilation according to Otis’ equation (adaptive ventilation mode, AVM). At the end of each phase, we collected data on VT, mechanical power, ΔP, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, PaCO2, pH, and hemodynamics.ResultsComparing adaptive mechanical ventilation with AVM2 to the approach based on Otis’ equation (AVM), we found a significant reduction in VT both in the whole study population (7.2\u2009±\u20090.9 vs. 8.2\u2009±\u20090.6\u2009ml/kg, p\u2009<\u2009\xa00.0001) and in the subgroup of patients with ARDS (6.6\u2009±\u20090.8\u2009ml/kg with AVM2 vs. 7.9\u2009±\u20090.5\u2009ml/kg with AVM, p\u2009<\u2009\xa00.0001). Similar reductions were observed for ΔPstat (whole study population: 11.5\u2009±\u20091.6\xa0cmH2O with AVM2 vs. 12.6\u2009±\u20092.5\xa0cmH2O with AVM, p\u2009<\u2009\xa00.0001; patients with ARDS: 11.8\u2009±\u20091.7 cmH2O with AVM2 and 13.3\u2009±\u20092.7 cmH2O with AVM, p\u2009=\u20090.0044) and total mechanical power (16.8\u2009±\u20093.9\u2009J/min with AVM2 vs. 18.6\u2009±\u20094.6\u2009J/min with AVM, p\u2009=\u20090.0024; ARDS: 15.6\u2009±\u20093.2\u2009J/min with AVM2 vs. 17.5\u2009±\u20094.1\u2009J/min with AVM, p\u2009=\u20090.0023). There was a small decrease in PaO2/FiO2 (270\u2009±\u200998 vs. 291\u2009±\u2009102\u2009mmHg with AVM, p\u2009=\u20090.03; ARDS: 194\u2009±\u200955 vs. 218\u2009±\u200961 with AVM, p\u2009=\u20090.008) and no differences in PaCO2, pH, and hemodynamics.ConclusionsAdaptive mechanical ventilation with automated minimization of inspiratory power may lead to more lung-protective ventilator settings when compared with adaptive mechanical ventilation according to Otis’ equation.Trial registrationThe study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00013540) on December 1, 2017, before including the first patient.