RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In some patients with auto-positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP), application of PEEP lower than auto-PEEP maintains a constant total PEEP, therefore reducing the inspiratory threshold load without detrimental cardiovascular or respiratory effects. We refer to these patients as "complete PEEP-absorbers." Conversely, adverse effects of PEEP application could occur in patients with auto-PEEP when the total PEEP rises as a consequence. From a pathophysiological perspective, all subjects with flow limitation are expected to be "complete PEEP-absorbers," whereas PEEP should increase total PEEP in all other patients. This study aimed to empirically assess the extent to which flow limitation alone explains a "complete PEEP-absorber" behavior (i.e., absence of further hyperinflation with PEEP), and to identify other factors associated with it. METHODS: One hundred patients with auto-PEEP of at least 5 cmH2O at zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) during controlled mechanical ventilation were enrolled. Total PEEP (i.e., end-expiratory plateau pressure) was measured both at ZEEP and after applied PEEP equal to 80 % of auto-PEEP measured at ZEEP. All measurements were repeated three times, and the average value was used for analysis. RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of the patients suffered from chronic pulmonary disease and 52 % from acute pulmonary disease; 61 % showed flow limitation at ZEEP, assessed by manual compression of the abdomen. The mean total PEEP was 7 ± 2 cmH2O at ZEEP and 9 ± 2 cmH2O after the application of PEEP (p < 0.001). Thirty-three percent of the patients were "complete PEEP-absorbers." Multiple logistic regression was used to predict the behavior of "complete PEEP-absorber." The best model included a respiratory rate lower than 20 breaths/min and the presence of flow limitation. The predictive ability of the model was excellent, with an overoptimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.89 (95 % CI 0.80-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Expiratory flow limitation was associated with both high and complete "PEEP-absorber" behavior, but setting a relatively high respiratory rate on the ventilator can prevent from observing complete "PEEP-absorption." Therefore, the effect of PEEP application in patients with auto-PEEP can be accurately predicted at the bedside by measuring the respiratory rate and observing the flow-volume loop during manual compression of the abdomen.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Previous physiological studies have identified factors that are involved in auto-PEEP generation. In our study, we examined how much auto-PEEP is generated from factors that are involved in its development. METHODS: One hundred eighty-six subjects undergoing controlled mechanical ventilation with persistent expiratory flow at the beginning of each inspiration were enrolled in the study. Volume-controlled continuous mandatory ventilation with PEEP of 0 cm H2O was applied while maintaining the ventilator setting as chosen by the attending physician. End-expiratory and end-inspiratory airway occlusion maneuvers were performed to calculate respiratory mechanics, and tidal flow limitation was assessed by a maneuver of manual compression of the abdomen. RESULTS: The variable with the strongest effect on auto-PEEP was flow limitation, which was associated with an increase of 2.4 cm H2O in auto-PEEP values. Moreover, auto-PEEP values were directly related to resistance of the respiratory system and body mass index and inversely related to expiratory time/time constant. Variables that were associated with the breathing pattern (tidal volume, frequency minute ventilation, and expiratory time) did not show any relationship with auto-PEEP values. The risk of auto-PEEP ≥5 cm H2O was increased by flow limitation (adjusted odds ratio 17; 95% CI: 6-56.2), expiratory time/time constant ratio <1.85 (12.6; 4.7-39.6), respiratory system resistance >15 cm H2O/L s (3; 1.3-6.9), age >65 y (2.8; 1.2-6.5), and body mass index >26 kg/m(2) (2.6; 1.1-6.1). CONCLUSIONS: Flow limitation, expiratory time/time constant, resistance of the respiratory system, and obesity are the most important variables that affect auto-PEEP values. Frequency expiratory time, tidal volume, and minute ventilation were not independently associated with auto-PEEP. Therapeutic strategies aimed at reducing auto-PEEP and its adverse effects should be primarily oriented to the variables that mainly affect auto-PEEP values.