Respiratory drive: a journey from health to disease.

Respiratory drive is defined as the intensity of respiratory centers output during the breath and is primarily affected by cortical and chemical feedback mechanisms. During the involuntary act of breathing, chemical feedback, primarily mediated through CO2, is the main determinant of respiratory drive. Respiratory drive travels through neural pathways to respiratory muscles, which execute the breathing process and generate inspiratory flow (inspiratory flow-generation pathway). In a healthy state, inspiratory flow-generation pathway is intact, and thus respiratory drive is satisfied by the rate of volume increase, expressed by mean inspiratory flow, which in turn determines tidal volume. In this review, we will explain the pathophysiology of altered respiratory drive by analyzing the respiratory centers response to arterial partial pressure of CO2 (PaCO2) changes. Both high and low respiratory drive have been associated with several adverse effects in critically ill patients. Hence, it is crucial to understand what alters the respiratory drive. Changes in respiratory drive can be explained by simultaneously considering the (1) ventilatory demands, as dictated by respiratory centers activity to CO2 (brain curve); (2) actual ventilatory response to CO2 (ventilation curve); and (3) metabolic hyperbola. During critical illness, multiple mechanisms affect the brain and ventilation curves, as well as metabolic hyperbola, leading to considerable alterations in respiratory drive. In critically ill patients the inspiratory flow-generation pathway is invariably compromised at various levels. Consequently, mean inspiratory flow and tidal volume do not correspond to respiratory drive, and at a given PaCO2, the actual ventilation is less than ventilatory demands, creating a dissociation between brain and ventilation curves. Since the metabolic hyperbola is one of the two variables that determine PaCO2 (the other being the ventilation curve), its upward or downward movements increase or decrease respiratory drive, respectively. Mechanical ventilation indirectly influences respiratory drive by modifying PaCO2 levels through alterations in various parameters of the ventilation curve and metabolic hyperbola. Understanding the diverse factors that modulate respiratory drive at the bedside could enhance clinical assessment and the management of both the patient and the ventilator.

Driving pressure of respiratory system and lung stress in mechanically ventilated patients with active breathing.

BACKGROUND: During control mechanical ventilation (CMV), the driving pressure of the respiratory system (ΔPrs) serves as a surrogate of transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPlung). Expiratory muscle activity that decreases end-expiratory lung volume may impair the validity of ΔPrs to reflect ΔPlung. This prospective observational study in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) ventilated with proportional assist ventilation (PAV+), aimed to investigate: (1) the prevalence of elevated ΔPlung, (2) the ΔPrs-ΔPlung relationship, and (3) whether dynamic transpulmonary pressure (Plungsw) and effort indices (transdiaphragmatic and respiratory muscle pressure swings) remain within safe limits. METHODS: Thirty-one patients instrumented with esophageal and gastric catheters (n = 22) were switched from CMV to PAV+ and respiratory variables were recorded, over a maximum of 24 h. To decrease the contribution of random breaths with irregular characteristics, a 7-breath moving average technique was applied. In each patient, measurements were also analyzed per deciles of increasing lung elastance (Elung). Patients were divided into Group A, if end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure (PLEI) increased as Elung increased, and Group B, which showed a decrease or no change in PLEI with Elung increase. RESULTS: In 44,836 occluded breaths, ΔPlung ≥ 12 cmH2O was infrequently observed [0.0% (0.0-16.9%) of measurements]. End-expiratory lung volume decrease, due to active expiration, was associated with underestimation of ΔPlung by ΔPrs, as suggested by a negative linear relationship between transpulmonary pressure at end-expiration (PLEE) and ΔPlung/ΔPrs. Group A included 17 and Group B 14 patients. As Elung increased, ΔPlung increased mainly due to PLEI increase in Group A, and PLEE decrease in Group B. Although ΔPrs had an area receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.87 (95% confidence intervals 0.82-0.92, P < 0.001) for ΔPlung ≥ 12 cmH2O, this was due exclusively to Group A [0.91 (0.86-0.95), P < 0.001]. In Group B, ΔPrs showed no predictive capacity for detecting ΔPlung ≥ 12 cmH2O [0.65 (0.52-0.78), P > 0.05]. Most of the time Plungsw and effort indices remained within safe range. CONCLUSION: In patients with ARDS ventilated with PAV+, injurious tidal lung stress and effort were infrequent. In the presence of expiratory muscle activity, ΔPrs underestimated ΔPlung. This phenomenon limits the usefulness of ΔPrs as a surrogate of tidal lung stress, regardless of the mode of support.

Inspiratory effort and breathing pattern change in response to varying the assist level: A physiological study.

AIM: To describe the response of breathing pattern and inspiratory effort upon changes in assist level and to assesss if changes in respiratory rate may indicate changes in respiratory muscle effort. METHODS: Prospective study of 82 patients ventilated on proportional assist ventilation (PAV+). At three levels of assist (20 %-50 %-80 %), patients' inspiratory effort and breathing pattern were evaluated using a validated prototype monitor. RESULTS: Independent of the assist level, a wide range of respiratory rates (16-35br/min) was observed when patients' effort was within the accepted range. Changing the assist level resulted in paired changes in inspiratory effort and rate of the same tendency (increase or decrease) in all but four patients. Increasing the level in assist resulted in a 31 % (8-44 %) decrease in inspiratory effort and a 10 % (0-18 %) decrease in respiratory rate. The change in respiratory rate upon the change in assist correlated modestly with the change in the effort (R = 0.5). CONCLUSION: Changing assist level results in changes in both respiratory rate and effort in the same direction, with change in effort being greater than that of respiratory rate. Yet, neither the magnitude of respiratory rate change nor the resulting absolute value may reliably predict the level of effort after a change in assist.