Use of airway pressure-based indices to detect high and low inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the patient's respiratory effort is essential during assisted ventilation. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of airway pressure (Paw)-based indices to detect potential injurious inspiratory effort during pressure support (PS) ventilation. METHODS: In this prospective diagnostic accuracy study conducted in four ICUs in two academic hospitals, 28 adult acute respiratory failure patients undergoing PS ventilation were enrolled. A downward PS titration was conducted from 20 cmH2O to 2 cmH2O at a 2 cmH2O interval. By performing an end-expiratory airway occlusion maneuver, the negative Paw generated during the first 100 ms (P0.1) and the maximal negative swing of Paw (∆Pocc) were measured. After an end-inspiratory airway occlusion, Paw reached a plateau, and the magnitude of change in plateau from peak Paw was measured as pressure muscle index (PMI). Esophageal pressure was monitored and inspiratory muscle pressure (Pmus) and Pmus-time product per minute (PTPmus/min) were used as the reference standard for the patient's effort. High and low effort was defined as Pmus > 10 and < 5 cmH2O, or PTPmus/min > 200 and < 50 cmH2O s min-1, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 246 levels of PS were tested. The low inspiratory effort was diagnosed in 145 (59.0%) and 136 (55.3%) PS levels using respective Pmus and PTPmus/min criterion. The receiver operating characteristic area of the three Paw-based indices by the respective two criteria ranged from 0.87 to 0.95, and balanced sensitivity (0.83-0.96), specificity (0.74-0.88), and positive (0.80-0.91) and negative predictive values (0.78-0.94) were obtained. The high effort was diagnosed in 34 (13.8%) and 17 (6.9%) support levels using Pmus and PTPmus/min criterion, respectively. High receiver operating characteristic areas of the three Paw-based indices by the two criteria were found (0.93-0.95). A high sensitivity (0.80-1.00) and negative predictive value (0.97-1.00) were found with a low positive predictive value (0.23-0.64). CONCLUSIONS: By performing simple airway occlusion maneuvers, the Paw-based indices could be reliably used to detect low inspiratory efforts. Non-invasive and easily accessible characteristics support their potential bedside use for avoiding over-assistance. More evaluation of their performance is required in cohorts with high effort.

Validation of the flow index to detect low inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Bedside assessment of low levels of inspiratory effort, which are probably insufficient to prevent muscle atrophy, is challenging. The flow index, which is derived from the analysis of the inspiratory portion of the flow-time waveform, has been recently introduced as a non-invasive parameter to evaluate the inspiratory effort. The primary objective of the present study was to provide an external validation of the flow index to detect low inspiratory effort. METHODS: Datasets containing flow, airway pressure, and esophageal pressure (Pes)-time waveforms were obtained from a previously published study in 100 acute brain-injured patients undergoing pressure support ventilation. Waveforms data were analyzed offline. A low inspiratory effort was defined by one of the following criteria, work of breathing (WOB) less than 0.3 J/L, Pes-time product (PTPes) per minute less than 50 cmH2O•s/min, or inspiratory muscle pressure (Pmus) less than 5 cmH2O, adding "or occurrence of ineffective effort more than 10%" for all criteria. The flow index was calculated according to previously reported method. The association of flow index with Pes-derived parameters of effort was investigated. The diagnostic accuracy of the flow index to detect low effort was analyzed. RESULTS: Moderate correlations were found between flow index and WOB, Pmus, and PTPes per breath and per minute (Pearson's correlation coefficients ranged from 0.546 to 0.634, P < 0.001). The incidence of low inspiratory effort was 62%, 51%, and 55% using the definition of WOB, PTPes per minute, and Pmus, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for flow index to diagnose low effort was 0.88, 0.81, and 0.88, for the three respective definition. By using the cutoff value of flow index less than 2.1, the diagnostic performance for the three definitions showed sensitivity of 0.95-0.96, specificity of 0.57-0.71, positive predictive value of 0.70-0.84, and negative predictive value of 0.90-0.93. CONCLUSIONS: The flow index is associated with Pes-based inspiratory effort measurements. Flow index can be used as a valid instrument to screen low inspiratory effort with a high probability to exclude cases without the condition.