Effects on mechanical power of different devices used for inhaled sedation in a bench model of protective ventilation in ICU.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled sedation during invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has received increasing attention. However, inhaled sedation devices increase dead-space ventilation and an undesirable effect is the increase in minute ventilation needed to maintain CO2 removal. A consequence of raising minute ventilation is an increase in mechanical power (MP) that can promote lung injury. However, the effect of inhaled sedation devices on MP remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a bench study to assess and compare the effects of three devices delivering inhaled sevoflurane currently available in ICU (AnaConDa-50 mL (ANA-50), AnaConDa-100 mL (ANA-100), and MIRUS) on MP by using a test lung model set with three compliances (20, 40, and 60 mL/cmH2O). We simulated lung-protective ventilation using a low tidal volume and two levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (5 and 15 cmH2O) under ambient temperature and dry conditions. Following the insertion of the devices, either the respiratory rate or tidal volume was increased in 15%-steps until end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) returned to the baseline value. MP was calculated at baseline and after EtCO2 correction using a simplified equation. RESULTS: Following device insertion, the EtCO2 increase was significantly greater with MIRUS (+ 78 ± 13%) and ANA-100 (+ 100 ± 11%) than with ANA-50 (+ 49 ± 7%). After normalizing EtCO2 by adjusting minute ventilation, MP significantly increased by more than 50% with all inhaled sedation devices compared to controls. The lowest increase in MP was observed with ANA-50 (p < 0.05 versus ANA-100 and MIRUS). The Costa index, another parameter assessing the mechanical energy delivered to the lungs, calculated as driving pressure × 4 + respiratory rate, significantly increased by more than 20% in all experimental conditions. Additional experiments performed under body temperature, ambient pressure, and gas saturated with water vapor conditions, confirmed the main results with an increase in MP > 50% with all devices after normalizing EtCO2 by adjusting minute ventilation. CONCLUSION: Inhaled sedation devices substantially increased MP in this bench model of protective ventilation, which might limit their benefits in ARDS.

A Bench Comparison of the Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Devices on Work of Breathing.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen therapy via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been extensively used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of devices has also increased. We conducted this study to answer the following questions: Do HFNC devices differ from the original device for work of breathing (WOB) and generated PEEP? METHODS: Seven devices were tested on ASL 5000 lung model. Compliance was set to 40 mL/cm H2O and resistance to 10 cm H2O/L/s. The devices were connected to a manikin head via a nasal cannula with FIO2 set at 0.21. The measurements were performed at baseline (manikin head free of nasal cannula) and then with the cannula and the device attached with oxygen flow set at 20, 40, and 60 L/min. WOB and PEEP were assessed at 3 simulated inspiratory efforts (-5, -10, -15 cm H2O muscular pressure) and at 2 breathing frequencies (20 and 30 breaths/min). Data were expressed as median (first-third quartiles) and compared with nonparametric tests to the Optiflow device taken as reference. RESULTS: Baseline WOB and PEEP were comparable between devices. Over all the conditions tested, WOB was 4.2 (1.0-9.4) J/min with the reference device, and the relative variations from it were 0, -3 (2-4), 1 (0-1), -2 (1-2), -1 (1-2), and -1 (1-2)% with Airvo 2, G5, HM80, T60, V500, and V60 Plus devices, respectively, (P < .05 Kruskal-Wallis test). PEEP was 0.9 (0.3-1.5) cm H2O with Optiflow, and the relative differences were -28 (22-33), -41 (38-46), -30 (26-36), -31 (28-34), -37 (32-42), and -24 (21-34)% with Airvo 2, G5, HM80, T60, V500, and V60 Plus devices, respectively, (P < .05 Kruskal-Wallis test). CONCLUSIONS: WOB was marginally higher and PEEP marginally lower with devices as compared to the reference device.

Delivery of high flow oxygen through nasal vs. tracheal cannulas: A bench study.

Background: The use of high flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) has significantly escalated during the COVID-19 pandemic. HFOT can be delivered through both dedicated devices and ICU ventilators. HFOT can be administered to a patient via a nasal cannula (NC). In intubated patients, a tracheal cannula (TC) is used instead. In this study, we aim to compare the work of breathing (WOB) using a TC or NC and to explore whether differences exist among HFOT devices. Methods: Seven HFOT devices (three dedicated and four ICU ventilators) were connected to a manikin head (Laerdal Medical) through a NC (Optiflow 3S, large size, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare) or a TC (OPT 970 Optiflow+, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare). Each device was also attached to a manikin head that was connected to a lung simulator (ASL5000, Ingmar Medical), set at 40 ml/cmH2O compliance, 10 cmH2O/L/s resistance, and sinusoidal inspiratory effort (muscular pressure 10 cmH2O, rate 30 breaths/min). HFOT was delivered at 40 L/min and at 21% inspired oxygen fraction. The total WOB per breath and its resistive and elastic components were automatically analyzed breath by breath over the last 20 breaths by using Campbell's diagram. Results: The WOB and its resistive and elastic components were significantly lower with the TC than with the NC for every device, and systematically lower with the reference device than with others. These differences were, however, very small and may be not clinically relevant. Conclusion: The WOB is lower with the TC than with the NC and with the reference device, compared with the most recent devices.

Simultaneous ventilation in the Covid-19 pandemic. A bench study.

COVID-19 pandemic sets the healthcare system to a shortage of ventilators. We aimed at assessing tidal volume (VT) delivery and air recirculation during expiration when one ventilator is divided into 2 test-lungs. The study was performed in a research laboratory in a medical ICU of a University hospital. An ICU (V500) and a lower-level ventilator (Elisée 350) were attached to two test-lungs (QuickLung) through a dedicated flow-splitter. A 50 mL/cmH2O Compliance (C) and 5 cmH2O/L/s Resistance (R) were set in both A and B test-lungs (A C50R5 / B C50R5, step1), A C50-R20 / B C20-R20 (step 2), A C20-R20 / B C10-R20 (step 3), and A C50-R20 / B C20-R5 (step 4). Each ventilator was set in volume and pressure control mode to deliver 800mL VT. We assessed VT from a pneumotachograph placed immediately before each lung, pendelluft air, and expiratory resistance (circuit and valve). Values are median (1st-3rd quartiles) and compared between ventilators by non-parametric tests. Between Elisée 350 and V500 in volume control VT in A/B test- lungs were 381/387 vs. 412/433 mL in step 1, 501/270 vs. 492/370 mL in step 2, 509/237 vs. 496/332 mL in step 3, and 496/281 vs. 480/329 mL in step 4. In pressure control the corresponding values were 373/336 vs. 430/414 mL, 416/185 vs. 322/234 mL, 193/108 vs. 176/ 92 mL and 422/201 vs. 481/329mL, respectively (P<0.001 between ventilators at each step for each volume). Pendelluft air volume ranged between 0.7 to 37.8 ml and negatively correlated with expiratory resistance in steps 2 and 3. The lower-level ventilator performed closely to the ICU ventilator. In the clinical setting, these findings suggest that, due to dependence of VT to C, pressure control should be preferred to maintain adequate VT at least in one patient when C and/or R changes abruptly and monitoring of VT should be done carefully. Increasing expiratory resistance should reduce pendelluft volume.

Bench Assessment of Expiratory Valve Resistance of Current ICU Ventilators in Dynamic Conditions.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that the lack of benefit of setting a low versus a high PEEP in patients with ARDS may be due in part to differences in the dynamic behavior of the expiratory valve in ventilators. We tested this hypothesis by conducting a bench comparison of the dynamic behavior of expiratory valves on ICU ventilators currently in use. METHODS: We attached 7 ICU ventilators (C5, C6, Carescape, PB980, ServoU, V500, and V680) to the ASL 5000 lung model (passive condition with compliance 20 mL/cm H2O and resistance 5 cm H2O/L/s) and set in volume controlled mode (tidal volume 0.8 L, breathing frequency 10 breaths/min). Flow and pressure were measured just before the exhalation valve. At PEEP of 5, 10, and 15 cm H2O, the median instantaneous expiratory resistance, the time to valve opening, and the pressure time products above or below the values of PEEP (expressed in cm H2O × s) were determined. RESULTS: Median instantaneous expiratory resistance values differed between the ventilators and PEEP settings with a significant interaction: at PEEP 5 cm H2O, the median (interquartile range) expiratory resistance values were 3.9 (3.5-4.7), 3.0 (3.0-3.1), 20.9 (15.8-24.9), 27.4 (26.5-43.2), 13.8 (13.6-13.9), 4.4 (4.0-4.6), and 34.3 (33.7-33.8) cm H2O/L/s, for the C5, C6, Carescape, PB980, ServoU, V500, and V680, respectively. For all the PEEP settings, the corresponding times to valve opening were 0.080 (0.077-0.082), 0.082 (0.080-0.085), 0.110 (0.105-0.110), 0.100 (0.085-1.05), 0.072 (0.062-0.072), 0.145 (0.115-0.150), and 0.075 (0.070-0.080) s, respectively, and pressure-time products were 2.8 (2.1-7.4), 6.8 (6.7-7.3), 2.4 (2.1-2.4), 3.5 (2.7-3.6), 1.8 (1.8-2.1), 2.8 (2.7-2.9), and 5.7 (5.4-5.9) cm H2O × s, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The resistance of active expiratory valves differed significantly between the 7 ICU ventilators tested.