M. Zelter

Source of human ventilatory chaos: lessons from switching controlled mechanical ventilation to inspiratory pressure support in critically ill patients.

Ventilatory flow measured at the airway opening in humans exhibits a complex dynamics that has the features of chaos. Currently available data point to a neural origin of this feature, but the role of respiratory mechanics has not been specifically assessed. In this aim, we studied 17 critically ill mechanically ventilated patients during a switch form an entirely machine-controlled assistance mode (assist-controlled ventilation ACV) to a patient-driven mode (inspiratory pressure support IPS). Breath-by-breath respiratory variability was assessed with the coefficient of variation of tidal volume, total cycle time, inspiratory time, expiratory time, mean inspiratory flow, duty cycle. The detection of chaos was performed with the noise titration technique. When present, chaos was characterized with numerical indexes (correlation dimension, irregularity; largest Lyapunov exponent, sensitivity to initial conditions). Expectedly, the coefficients of variations of the respiratory variables were higher during IPS than during ACV. During ACV, noise titration failed to detect nonlinearities in 12 patients who did not exhibit signs of spontaneous respiratory activity. This indicates that the mechanical properties of the respiratory system were not sufficient to produce ventilatory chaos in the presence of a nonlinear command (ventilator clock). A positive noise limit was found in the remaining 5 cases, but these patients exhibited signs of active expiratory control (highly variable expiratory time, respiratory frequency higher than the set frequency). A positive noise limit was also observed in 16/17 patients during IPS (p<0.001). These observations suggest that ventilatory chaos predominantly has a neural origin (intrinsic to the respiratory central pattern generators, resulting from their perturbation by respiratory afferents, or both), with little contribution of respiratory mechanics, if any.

Comparison of bedside measurement of cardiac output with the thermodilution method and the Fick method in mechanically ventilated patients

IntroductionBedside cardiac output determination is a common preoccupation in the critically ill. All available methods have drawbacks. We wished to re-examine the agreement between cardiac output determined using the thermodilution method (QTTHERM) and cardiac output determined using the metabolic (Fick) method (QTFICK) in patients with extremely severe states, all the more so in the context of changing practices in the management of patients. Indeed, the interchangeability of the methods is a clinically relevant question; for instance, in view of the debate about the risk–benefit balance of right heart catheterization.Patients and methodsEighteen mechanically ventilated passive patients with a right heart catheter in place were studied (six women, 12 men; age, 39–84 years; simplified acute physiology scoreII, 39–111). QTTHERM was obtained using a standard procedure. QTFICK was measured from oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, and arterial and mixed venous oxygen contents. Forty-nine steady-state pairs of measurements were performed. The data were normalized for repeated measurements, and were tested for correlation and agreement.ResultsThe QTFICK value was 5.2 ± 2.0 l/min whereas that of QTTHERM was 5.8 ± 1.9 l/min (R = 0.840, P < 0.0001; mean difference, -0.7 l/min; lower limit of agreement, -2.8 l/min; upper limit of agreement, 1.5 l/min). The agreement was excellent between the two techniques at QTTHERM values <5 l/min but became too loose for clinical interchangeability above this value. Tricuspid regurgitation did not influence the results.Discussion and conclusionsNo gold standard is established to measure cardiac output in critically ill patients. The thermodilution method has known limitations that can lead to inaccuracies. The metabolic method also has potential pitfalls in this context, particularly if there is increased oxygen consumption within the lungs. The concordance between the two methods for low cardiac output values suggests that they can both be relied upon for clinical decision making in this context. Conversely, a high cardiac output value is more difficult to rely on in absolute terms.

Assessment of Lung Physiology Using Pulmonary Function Tests

The lung combines two basic functions linked to respiration; first gas exchange, consisting of the oxygenation of the incoming desaturated venous blood and the removal of carbon dioxide, thus producing arterialized blood, and second, and consequently, the removal of protons (H+) from this incoming blood, permitting fast regulation of the blood concentration of H+ (pH) (Dejours 1975). To perform this task adequately, ventilation and circulation within the lung must be matched so that the ratio of the distribution of ventilation to that of perfusion is optimum. The ventilation-perfusion ratio ultimately determines the functional performance of the lung in terms of gas exchange at a given level of ventilation (Riley and Cournand 1949). Measurement of blood gases is the most relevant test available to give a global assessment of gas exchange in a given patient. Unfortunately blood gas values, when abnormal, give no clue as to what aspect of lung function is impaired. Furthermore, these values tend to become abnormal only in the late or acute phase of lung diseases, because of the remarkable flexibility of ventilationperfusion control.