Conventional monitoring is not sufficient to assess respiratory effort during assisted ventilation. / La monitorización convencional no es suficiente para valorar el esfuerzo respiratorio durante la ventilación asistida.

OBJECTIVE: Study the relationship and concordance between calculated respiratory effort using the signals of the ventilator (Pmus) and that measured in esophageal pressure (Pes) on mechanical ventilation with different levels of respiratory assistance. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. AMBIT: Intensive Care Unit of 2 universitary hospitals. Patients Patients on weaning time. PROCEDURE: Airway, esophageal and respiratory flow were recorded on CPAP, assist volume control (ACV) and pressure support (PS), with complete (ACV1,PS1) and partial assistance (ACV5,PS5). MEASUREMENT: respiratory variations of Pes and Pmus (Δ: cmH2O) and pressure time product (PTPm: cmH2O·s/m). RESULTS: Fourty one records were studied, the assistance was in CPAP of 5cmH2O, PS1 of 15±5 reduced to 9±4cmH2O. In ACV1 the inspiratory flow was 1±0.2l/s, reduced to 0.49±0.1l/s for ACV5. The increase in respiratory assistance decreases respiratory effort, measured in Delta Pes (CPAP, ACV5, ACV1, PS5, PS1): 11±3, 6±3, 5±3, 9±6, 7±7 and in Pmus 16±5, 10±6, 5±3, 10±6, 5±4cmH2O (P<.001). The PTP per minute measured in Pes: 213±87, 96±91, 23±24, 206±121, 108±100 (P=.001) and in Pmus: 293±117, 156±84, 24±32, 233±121, 79±90 (P<.001). The measurements in Pes and Pmus showed the following correlation, in Delta: 0.72 and PTPm, 0.87. The Bland-Altman analysis indicates that the difference between Delta Pes-Pmus can be 16 and the PTPm of 264 and the systematic error in Delta: -0.98±4.4 and PTPm -23.69±66.3cmH2O·s/m. CONCLUSIONS: Calculated and measured parameters of respiratory effort showed unacceptable differences in clinical practice.

Utilización de la ventilación no invasiva en la insuficiencia respiratoria aguda. Estudio multicéntrico en unidades de cuidados intensivos / Use of non-invasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure. Multicenter study in intensive care units

Objetivo. Estudiar el uso de la ventilación no invasiva (VNI) en la insuficiencia respiratoria aguda, en las unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCI) de España. Métodos. Se realizó una encuesta a 254 UCI. Al final de ésta se invitó a participar en un estudio multicéntrico retrospectivo, y proporcionar información detallada sobre pacientes ventilados. Resultados. Contestaron 123 UCI; 119 utilizaban la VNI, de manera muy variable. En la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC), la VNI fue de primera elección en el 89% de las unidades; en el edema agudo de pulmón (EAP), el 79%; en la insuficiencia respiratoria tras la extubación, el 53%; en la neumonía, el 53%, y en el síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo (SDRA), el 17%. Su utilización en la EPOC fue ocasional o nula en el 11% de las unidades, y en el EAP, en el 21%. 18 hospitales enviaron información de 432 pacientes ventilados, de los que 232 (54%) recibieron VNI como primera elección. La neumonía o el SDRA fueron factores independientes en relación con el fracaso de la VNI (odds ratio ajustada [ORa] = 5,71; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%, 1,83-17,8; p = 0,003). La admisión en una unidad que ventilara de forma no invasiva a más de 50 pacientes/año (ORa = 0,22; IC del 95%, 0,07-0,63; p = 0,005) y una mayor razón PaO2/FIO2 tras una hora de ventilación (ORa = 0,98 por punto; IC del 95%, 0,97-0,99; p < 0,001) fueron factores protectores. Conclusiones. La VNI es ampliamente utilizada en las UCI de España, pero es posible que siga estando infrautilizada en la EPOC y el EAP. El diagnóstico de neumonía o SDRA fue un factor independiente en relación con el fracaso. Ventilar a más de 50 pacientes/año y una mayor PaO2/FIO2 tras una hora fueron factores protectores(AU)

Objectives. Study the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care units (ICUs) in Spain. Methods. A questionnaire was sent to 254 ICUs, after which, they were invited to participate in a multicenter, retrospective study, providing detailed information on ventilated patients. Results. Answers were received from 123 hospitals. Of these, 119 used NIV, although its use varied greatly. NIV is the treatment of choice in 89% of the units for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), in 79% for acute pulmonary edema (APE), in 53% for postextubation failure, in 53% for pneumonia 53%, and in 17% for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It was used occasionally in COPD in 11% of the units, and in 21% of the units for APE. Eighteen hospitals provided additional information on 432 ventilated patients, 232 (54%) of whom received NIV as first line therapy. Presence of pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was an independent predictive factor of NIV failure (ORa = 5.71; CI 95%, 1.83-17.8; p = 0.003). Admission in a unit with experience in NIV in > 50 patients/year (ORa = 0.22; CI 95%, 0.07-0.63; p = 0.005) and a higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio after one hour of ventilation (ORa = 0.98 per point; CI 95%, 0.97-0.99; p < 0.001) were protector factors. Conclusions. In Spain, NIV is widely used but it may continue to be underused in COPD and APE. The diagnosis of pneumonia or ARDS was an independent predictive risk factor. Admission in an ICU with NIV in more than 50 patients/year also have higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio after one hour of ventilation were predictive factors of success(AU)

[Two case studies of neuroleptic malignant syndrome]. / Estudio de dos casos de síndrome maligno por neurolépticos.

We present two cases of neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS). In the first one, we have a patient, female, of fifty years old, with hypertension and diagnosed of schizophrenic psychosis since twenty year ago. In the second one, the patient, female too, of twenty-five years old, without antecedents neither psychiatric nor organic that on interest. She is pregnant of six or seven weeks. It is analysed the guide-line of neuroleptics that could possibly originate the NMS, as well as the evolution of the symptoms of that syndrome after being applicated the therapy. The clinical judgement followed is discussed so far the diagnosis has become firm.