Individualized PEEP titration guided by intratidal compliance profile analysis improves regional ventilation – a randomized controlled trial

doi:10.21203/rs.2.13617/v2

Download PDF

Research article

Individualized PEEP titration guided by intratidal compliance profile analysis improves regional ventilation – a randomized controlled trial

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.13617/v2

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 20 Feb, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Anesthesiology →

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Background Application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improves lung aeration and reduces mechanical stress during mechanical ventilation. Although numerous approaches for PEEP titration have been proposed, there is no accepted strategy to titrate optimal PEEP. By analyzing the intratidal compliance profiles, PEEP may be titrated patient-individually. Methods After obtaining informed consent, we measured respiratory system mechanics, regional ventilation in 60 consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery, randomly allocated to the control group (PEEP = 5 cmH2O) or the intervention group receiving individually titrated PEEP, guided by intratidal compliance profile analysis. Primary endpoint was the frequencies of nonlinear intratidal compliance (CRS) profiles of the respiratory system (horizontal, increasing, decreasing and mixed). We further investigated respiratory and hemodynamic variables and regional ventilation. Results Frequencies of CRS profiles were comparable between the groups. Besides PEEP [control: 5.0 (0.0), intervention: 5.8 (1.1) cmH2O, p<0.001] respiratory and hemodynamic variables were comparable between the two groups. The compliance profile analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups. The loss of ventral and dorsal regional ventilation was higher in the control [ventral: 41.0 (16.3) %, dorsal: 25.9 (13.9) %] than in the intervention group [ventral: 29.3 (17.6) %, dorsal: 16.4 (12.7) %, p (ventral) = 0.039, p (dorsal) = 0.028]. Conclusions Individualized PEEP titration according to bedside compliance profile analysis improves regional ventilation without affecting respiratory and hemodynamic variables negatively and may be a promising approach to patient-individual ventilation setting.

Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine

PEEP titration

Mechanical ventilation

Respiratory system mechanics

Gliding-SLICE

Compliance profile analysis

During mechanical ventilation, it is widely accepted that the application of low tidal volume and low driving pressure [i.e. the difference between plateau pressure (P_Plat) and (positive) end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)] protect the lung from destructive effects of alveolar overdistension [1–4].

In combination with low tidal volumes, application of adequate PEEP and the performance of recruitment maneuvers was shown to improve postoperative pulmonary function, arterial oxygenation and to reduce health care utilization [2, 5]. However, there are conflicting data regarding the setting of adequate PEEP during general anesthesia [6]. With regard to the conflicting clinical data, many techniques were developed to determine adequate PEEP [7–10]. One of these techniques, first described in 1979 for patients with severe lung injury [11], is based on setting the PEEP slightly above the lower inflection point of the inspiratory limb of the static pressure-volume (PV) curve [7, 12, 13]. Other techniques focus on the respiratory system compliance (C_RS). For example, PEEP can be titrated to reach the maximum quasi-static compliance, calculated by dividing V_T by the driving pressure [10, 14, 15]. However, a single value compliance cannot reflect the non-linearity of intratidal respiratory system mechanics during the breathing cycle [16, 17] and therefore always a maneuver is required to identify the PEEP for maximal compliance. To cope with the non-linearity of the intratidal C_RSunder the dynamic conditions of mechanical ventilation, the gliding-SLICE method [18, 19] was introduced, enhancing the classical SLICE method [20, 21]. In brief, the pressure-volume curve is subdivided in several volume steps and the volume dependent compliance is calculated on the base of data points within a certain volume range ('slice') around the current step via multiple linear regression analysis (Fig. 1). The resulting compliance-volume curve can then be classified as follows: An increasing compliance profile is interpreted to indicate intratidal recruitment, suggesting an increase of PEEP. A decreasing compliance profile indicates overdistension, suggesting a decrease of PEEP. A horizontal compliance profile is assumed preferable as it does not indicate either of both unwished conditions. According to these three basic compliance profiles, combinations may be observed [19] (Fig. 1). A previously described Decision Support System with a Graphical User Interface (GUI) implements the gliding-SLICE method into a user-friendly tool to recommend a bedside patient-individual PEEP titration during mandatory ventilation [22]. Using exemplary data from patients ventilated in the volume- and pressure-controlled mode, a theoretical study demonstrated that the Decision Support System allows to estimate the intratidal compliance-profiles and that the recommended PEEP adjustments directed to ventilation with horizontal compliance profiles [22].

The primary hypothesis of this randomized controlled clinical trial is that individualized PEEP titration based on the analysis of the intratidal compliance profile improves respiratory system mechanics and regional ventilation during perioperative mandatory ventilation, compared to a non-personalized PEEP ventilation technique. Therefore we determined frequencies of nonlinear intratidal compliance (C_RS) profiles, regional ventilation, and respiratory and hemodynamic variables in 60 mandatory ventilated consecutive patients undergoing otorhinolaryngeal surgery.

Ethics, consent and permission

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre of Freiburg (vote # 268/15) on 29^th June 2015 and registered at the German Register for Clinical Trials (DRKS00008924). This study adheres to CONSORT guidelines.

Study design and patient population

After obtaining written informed consent from all individual participants included in the study, we studied respiratory mechanics, hemodynamic variables and regional ventilation in 60 consecutive patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III, undergoing otorhinolaryngeal surgery at the Medical Center of the University of Freiburg, Germany. The study was performed as a prospective parallel arm, randomized, controlled trial with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Randomization was carried out in blocks of 30 by a computer generated allocation sequence. Participiants were enrolled and assigned to the interventions by a study related anesthetist. Exclusion criteria were ASA physical status > III, age < 18 years, pregnancy, emergency procedure, cardiac pacemaker and other active implants, obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg·m^-2) history of pulmonary disease, laparoscopic surgery or refusal of participation.

Procedure

After primary recruitment and preoperative evaluation, the patients received routine monitoring (electrocardiography, SpO₂, noninvasive blood pressure measurement; Infinity Delta XL, Dräger Medical, Lübeck, Germany). After preoxygenation to an expiratory fraction of oxygen of 0.8, anesthesia was induced and maintained as total intravenous anesthesia with a continuous infusion of propofol (Propofol 1%, Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany; target controlled infusion, effect site target concentration for induction: 6-8 µg·mL^-1, target concentration for maintenance: 3-5 µg·mL^-1, Agilia, Schnider Model; Fresenius Kabi) and remifentanil (TEVA GmbH, Ulm, Germany; induction: 1-2 µg·kg^-1, maintenance: 0.15-0.3 µg·kg^-1·min^-1). During the study protocol, a Bispectral Index™ (BIS™) monitoring (Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) was used as an additional monitor of depth of anesthesia (BIS value target 40-60). Tracheal intubation was facilitated with 0.15 mg·kg^-1 predicted body weight (PBW) [23] cisatracurium (Fresenius Kabi). Potential hypotension (defined as mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg) was treated with a continuous infusion of norepinephrine (0.03-0.2 µg·kg-¹·min^-1). Volume requirements were addressed individually according to clinical judgement with a crystalloid solution (Jonosteril; Fresenius Kabi). For tracheal intubation, we used tracheal tubes with low pressure cuffs (internal diameter of 7.0-7.5 mm for women and 8.0 mm for men; Mallinckrodt Hallo-Contour; Covidien, Neustadt an der Donau, Germany). All patients were ventilated in the volume-controlled mode with a tidal volume (V_T) of 7 mL·kg^-1 PBW. Ventilation frequency was set to maintain an end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure between 35 and 40 mmHg. The initial PEEP was set to 5 cmH₂O, according to our local standard. Following baseline measurements, the randomization was disclosed. In the control group, this PEEP was maintained for the whole procedure, in the intervention group, the PEEP was adjusted dynamically according to the recommendations resulting from the intratidal compliance profile analysis (see below).

Gliding-SLICE

To calculate nonlinear intratidal C_RS profiles of via the gliding-SLICE method, we chose a number of 21 equidistant slices as a tradeoff between calculation effort and reasonable resolution. The resulting intratidal compliance curves were classified into six different compliance profiles, as described earlier [21, 24, 25]. In brief, a second order polynomial was fit into the compliance-volume curve, and the resulting segment of a parabola was assumed to represent the compliance-volume curve in a filtered form. If the segment showed an increase of more than 20% of the compliance maximum, the profile was classified as containing an increasing part. A segment decreasing by more than 20% of the compliance maximum was classified as containing a decreasing part. A segment containing the angular point of the parabola was classified as containing the horizontal part. A compliance profile with less than 20% change was classified as horizontal (Fig. 1) [22]. The Decision Support Systems suggested a PEEP increase of 2 cmH₂O in case of a merely increasing compliance profile, 1 cmH₂O in case of an increasing compliance profile with horizontal component, a PEEP decrease of 2 cmH₂O in case of a merely decreasing compliance profile and 1 cmH₂O in case of a decreasing compliance profile with horizontal component. A merely horizontal compliance profile resulted in the suggestion to maintain PEEP as it is.

Electrical impedance tomography

Regional ventilation was measured via electrical impedance tomography (EIT, PulmoVista 500, Dräger Medical) every 10 minutes for a duration of 2 minutes. EIT recordings were offline evaluated using software developed in Matlab (MATLAB R2014a, The Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA). As a first step, the relevant lung areas were determined for each patient by applying the lung area estimation method [26, 27] to the raw EIT data. Therefore, functional region of interest was selected by deleting all pixels with impedance change smaller than 20% of maximum tidal impedance change. After mirroring the deleted pixels, cardiac area was removed. The obtained lung area was then applied to all recorded raw EIT images. After this preprocessing, functional impedance images were generated. This was done by subtracting the frames corresponding to the start of inspiration from the frames corresponding to the end of inspiration. Thus, these functional images (f-EIT) represent the distribution of the tidal volume for each breath. To assess potential changes in regional ventilation, tidal variation as well as a gain and loss calculation was performed. Gain and loss calculation is based on subtracting functional impedance images of baseline measurements from the functional impedance images of the recording under investigation. Subsequently, the resulting differential images were split into ventral and dorsal parts and the number of positive (‘gain’) and negative (‘loss’) pixels were calculated for each such region. Considering the difference between the calculated gain and loss (net impedance difference) ultimately provides a measure for changes in regional ventilation. If this difference was positive, we assumed an increase in regional ventilation in the respective lung area whereas a negative difference indicates a decrease in regional ventilation [28]. Tidal variation was calculated as the fraction of impedance values in ventral (TV_v) and dorsal areas (TV_d) for all functional impedance images under consideration using Equation 1 (see Supplementary Files)

where x_i,v are the impedance values in the ventral region, x_i,d the impedance values in the dorsal region and x_i the sum of all impedance values of the functional impedance image under consideration.

End points and data collection

Frequencies of nonlinear intratidal C_RS profiles (measured using the gliding-SLICE method) was the primary endpoint of this study. Secondary endpoints were regional ventilation (ventral and dorsal ventilation distribution, ventral and dorsal gain and loss), the respiratory system variables [peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), P_Plat, mean tracheal pressure (P_mean), PEEP] and hemodynamic variables [systolic blood pressure (BP_sys), diastolic blood pressure (BP_dias), heart rate and mean arterial pressure (MAP)].

Sample size calculation and statistical evaluation

There are no data available concerning the variance of frequencies of compliance profiles. Therefore, we based our sample size calculation on estimation of a general standardized effect size e, being the quotient of differences in means and SD. With regard to our approach, adapting PEEP according to the measured compliance profile, we assumed a large effect size and therefore chose e = 0.8 [29]. In regard to the trial design (unpaired test conditions) and an assumed e of 0.8, 50 patients were required to reach a test power of 0.8 with a desired level of significance of 0.05.

To compensate for potential incomplete data sets, a total of 60 patients were recruited. Data are presented as mean (SD). Differences between the two groups were assessed with unpaired Students t-test, respectively. Statistical significance was considered for p < 0.05. Preceding, Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to confirm that the assumed normal distribution cannot be rejected. For not normally distributed data, differences between the two groups were assessed with Mann-Whitney U tests.

Patients were recruited from November, 5^th 2015 to January, 29^th 2016. In total, 60 patients were included. 12 patients had to be excluded due to incomplete data sets (Fig. 2). During the study protocol, no adverse or serious events occurred. Age, gender, ASA physical status, PBW, actual body weight (ABW) and BMI were comparable between the two groups (Table 1).

Respiratory and hemodynamic variables

In 12 patients in the intervention group (48%) the PEEP was adjusted according to the intratidal compliance profile analysis. In 7 of these patients (28%) the PEEP was thenceforward held constant. In 3 of the patients in the intervention group (12%) the PEEP was adjusted twice. In 2 patients (8%), the PEEP was adjusted three times. In 11 patients (44%), the PEEP was increased as the corresponding compliance profile analysis. PEEP was higher in the intervention group compared to the control group [control: 5.0 (0.2) cmH₂O, intervention: 5.8 (1.1) cmH₂O, p < 0.001; range control: 5.0-5.0 cmH₂O, range intervention: 3.9-8.5 cmH₂O]. In total, a PEEP adaption was performed in 12 patients in the intervention group (48%). These individualized PEEP adaptations had no significant effect on the other measured respiratory system or hemodynamic variables (Table 2). The frequencies of nonlinear intratidal C_RS profiles showed no significant difference between the two groups (Table 3).

EIT measurements

Regional impedance distribution showed no significant difference in ventilation distribution between the two groups (Fig. 3). Gain and loss calculations showed a significant decrease in loss of ventral regional ventilation between the two groups [loss of ventral regional ventilation of 41.0 (16.3) % in the control group and 29.3 (17.6) % in the intervention group, p = 0.039]. In the dorsal lung area, the gain in regional ventilation was higher in the intervention group [14.3 (11.9) %] than in the control group [24.6 (13.0) %, p = 0.013]. In the intervention group, the loss of dorsal regional ventilation was less pronounced [16.4 (12.7) %] than in the control group [25.9 (13.9) %, p = 0.028] (Table 4). TV_v and TV_d showed no significant difference between the two groups (Table 4).

In this study, we compared the effects of an individualized PEEP titration according to bedside analysis of the frequencies nonlinear intratidal C_RS profiles (measured using the gliding-SLICE method). The main findings are that only small PEEP adaptations are required to transfer increasing to horizontal compliance profiles and that the individualized PEEP titration improved regional ventilation without affecting impedance distribution and respiratory or hemodynamic variables negatively.

Respiratory and hemodynamic variables

Besides PEEP, none of the respiratory and hemodynamic variables differed between the two investigated patient groups. PEEP is generally associated with recruitment and one might expect that C_RS increases with increasing PEEP. However, in agreement with earlier studies [16, 30] C_RS remained unchanged besides PEEP related changes in regional ventilation. Compared to lungs with severe lung-injury and impaired respiratory system mechanics, healthy lungs are in a well recruited state, thus compliance may barely depend on lung volume. In particular, in our study, patients showed respiratory system mechanics that were mostly characterized by a horizontal compliance profile and consequently PEEP adaptations were performed less frequent than we had expected. It follows that the observed improvement in regional ventilation may have increased C_RS, if the studied patient collective would have included more patients with impaired respiratory system mechanics and/or surgical procedures associated with an increased risk for alterations of respiratory functions (e.g. laparoscopic surgery, patient positioning, obesity). Since this is the first study in which we applied individualized PEEP titration according to the compliance profile analysis, we did not include patients at risk for impaired respiratory system performance. One might speculate further that the comparably high alveolar recruitment in the studied patients was the reason that we did not find significant differences in C_RS. This hypothesis can be supported by two clinical trials to provide preliminary investigations of the gliding-SLICE method [16, 30]. In both studies, lower levels of PEEP (such as 5 and 7 cmH₂O) did not prevent from C_RSprofiles indicating recruitment/derecruitment. In both studies, intratidal compliance profile analysis was used as a bedside measurement for predefined PEEP settings. In the present study, this analysis was used to guide PEEP titration individually. One might speculate that the higher duration of surgical procedure [mean duration of surgery of 120 min [30] and 184 min [16] vs. 83.2 min (control group) and 87.5 min (intervention group) in the present study] leaded to a more pronounced impairment of respiratory system mechanics and thus of intratidal C_RSprofiles. Further, in the present study, obesity was an exclusion criterion. In one of the previous studies [16], obese patients were included. Since obesity is associated with a low respiratory system compliance, early expiratory alveolar collapse, consecutive atelectasis and increased airway resistance [31], it seems obvious that the results from intratidal compliance profile analysis differs from them in the present study. It follows that further are needed to provide more detailed information about the impact of an individualized PEEP titration strategy based on the gliding-SLICE method on respiratory function in patients with impaired respiratory system mechanics.

By increasing the intrathoracic pressure, PEEP was shown to affect the cardiac performance by altering the left ventricular preload, afterload and cardiac contractility [32]. Previous studies found that in case of increasing intratidal compliance profiles, a small increase in PEEP directed to ventilation with horizontal compliance [16, 30]. Since the overall increase of PEEP in our intervention group was comparably low, it is not surprising that our individualized PEEP titration had no effect on the measured hemodynamic variables. With regard to the unaffected respiratory and hemodynamic variables, it is even more remarkable that our ventilation strategy improved regional ventilation, anyway.

Further, it should be noticed that our PEEP titration strategy is based on analyses of the intratidal compliance profiles utilizing only data which are available from standard monitoring. In contrast, previously described techniques for titrating PEEP (decremental PEEP trial [33], dead space fraction [34], indices of regional ventilation [35–37], esophageal pressure [38] or other imaging techniques [39]) require additional equipment, involve additional burden for the patient or may per se not be available at the bedside. The techniques based on the determination of best PEEP from static respiratory system variables, such as the static PV curve, did not contribute to the dynamic intratidal changes in respiratory system mechanics [40], required sedation and often muscle relaxation [7]. Moreover, they required a prolonged maneuver during which the patient is not sufficiently ventilated. During a decremental PEEP trial, adequate ventilation is warranted however, to identify the PEEP for maximum C_RS, the optimal PEEP must necessarily be exceeded during the maneuver. Thus, both PEEP titration methods bear the risk for overdistension and cannot be applied continuously. By contrast, PEEP titration based on the intratidal compliance profile does not require a maneuver, may be applied on a breath-by-breath analysis and is applicable for consecutive PEEP adjustment.

Regional ventilation

Even in patients without impaired respiratory function, induction of general anesthesia and consecutive mechanical ventilation bear the risk for atelectrauma [41]. Studies that focus on perioperative lung-protective ventilation strategies in patients without severe lung-injury showed that the rate of postoperative pulmonary complications was lower when the ventilation strategy included low tidal volume, high PEEP and repetitive recruitment maneuvers [2, 5]. The application of low PEEP levels was shown to promote tidal small airway closure and consecutive atelectasis [42]. As a non-invasive, radiation-free method, EIT can be used to monitor regional ventilation and the formation of atelectasis [43]. Further, EIT can be used to evaluate differences between the measured PV curve from the respirator and regional ventilation [44]. This recently introduced technique to asses these differences may help to understand the heterogeneity of the respiratory system mechanics, especially in patients with impaired respiratory function. In contrast to other studies that showed that the EIT can be used to titrate PEEP individually [36, 37], we used the EIT as an external measurement and could demonstrate that an individualized PEEP titration guided by the intratidal compliance profile analysis improved regional ventilation. As should be expected by the increased PEEP in the intervention group, we found an improvement in regional ventilation (assessed by gain and loss calculations). These results demonstrated that EIT can be used to validate changes in regional ventilation when PEEP titration was guided by the gliding-SLICE method. With regard to the comparable respiratory system mechanics and comparable frequencies of compliance profiles between the two groups, it is not surprising that the ventilation distribution and tidal variation was comparable between patients in the control and intervention group.

We did not perform invasive blood pressure measurement to evaluate hemodynamic performances with a higher temporal resolution and arterial blood gas analyses. Placing an arterial line is not part of our standard treatment in the patients conducted in the present study. We felt that the risks of an arterial line placement would not outweigh the potential benefits of such measurement. Since the intention of our study was to investigate the impact of comparable new patient-individual PEEP titration strategy in non-injured respiratory system, we did not include patients at high risk to the formation of atelectasis. Thus, further studies are required to investigate the potential impact of PEEP titration based on bedside analysis of non-linear intratidal compliance on the respiratory system mechanics in patients prone to an impaired respiratory function.

This is the first study to investigate regional ventilation during PEEP titration guided by intratidal compliance profile analysis in patients. In lung-healthy patients undergoing short surgical procedures associated with a low risk of pulmonary impairment, bedside analysis of non-linear intratidal mechanics of the respiratory system using the gliding-SLICE method did not improve respiratory system mechanics and compliance profiles distribution. According to the improved gain and loss measurements, we might say that individualized PEEP titration based on the gliding-SLICE method might be of limited importance in patients without impaired respiratory system mechanics.

ABW, actual body weight

ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists

BMI, body mass index

C_RS, compliance of the respiratory system

C_stat, quasi-static compliance of the respiratory system

EIT, electrical impedance tomography

EI_Th, mean thoracic electrical impedance

FeO₂, expiratory oxygen concentration

FiO₂, inspiratory oxygen concentration

I:E, ratio of inspiratory time to expiratory time

MAP, mean arterial pressure

PBW, predicted body weight

PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure

PIP, peak inspiratory pressure

P_mean, mean airway pressure

P_Plat, plateau pressure

BP_dias, diastolic blood pressure

BP_sys, systolic blood pressure

SpO₂, peripheral oxygen saturation (pulse oximetry)

VF, ventilation frequency

V_T, tidal volume

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre of Freiburg (Engelbergstr. 21, 79106 Freiburg, Germany, Ethical Committee N° 268/15) on 29^th June 2015 (Chairperson Prof. Dr. R. Korinthenberg). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and material

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on request. Please note that EIT data files require large memory. A separate data transfer service will be used to transfer EIT data files.

Competing interests

J.W., J.G., J.S., S. L.-Z., S. B. and S.W declare no conflicts of interest. S.S. has a consulting contract with Gründler GmbH, Freudenstadt (no relationship to this study).

Funding

This project has not received any funding. The article processing charge was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the University of Freiburg in the funding program Open Access Publishing.

Author’s contributions

Planning the study: S. S., S. W.

Conduction of the study: J. G., S. W.

Data analysis: J. W., S. L.-Z., S. B., S. S., S. W.

Drafting the article: J.W., J. S., S. S., S. W.

Revising the article for important intellectual content: All authors.

All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Neto AS, Hemmes SNT, Barbas CSV, Beiderlinden M, Fernandez-Bustamante A, Futier E, et al. Association between driving pressure and development of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for general anaesthesia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2016;4:272–80. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(16)00057-6.
Futier E, Constantin J-M, Paugam-Burtz C, Pascal J, Eurin M, Neuschwander A, et al. A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:428–37. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1301082.
Loring SH, Malhotra A. Driving pressure and respiratory mechanics in ARDS. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:776–7. doi:10.1056/NEJMe1414218.
Amato MBP, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, Brochard L, Costa ELV, Schoenfeld DA, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:747–55. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1410639.
Severgnini P, Selmo G, Lanza C, Chiesa A, Frigerio A, Bacuzzi A, et al. Protective mechanical ventilation during general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery improves postoperative pulmonary function. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:1307–21. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e31829102de.
High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during general anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery (PROVHILO trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2014;384:495–503. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60416-5.
Ward NS, Lin DY, Nelson DL, Houtchens J, Schwartz WA, Klinger JR, et al. Successful determination of lower inflection point and maximal compliance in a population of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:963–8.
Servillo G, Robertis E de, Maggiore S, Lemaire F, Brochard L, Tufano R. The upper inflection point of the pressure-volume curve. Influence of methodology and of different modes of ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:842–9. doi:10.1007/s00134-002-1293-7.
Hess DR. Recruitment Maneuvers and PEEP Titration. Respir Care. 2015;60:1688–704. doi:10.4187/respcare.04409.
Suter PM, Fairley B, Isenberg MD. Optimum end-expiratory airway pressure in patients with acute pulmonary failure. N Engl J Med. 1975;292:284–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM197502062920604.
Lemaire F, Simoneau G, Harf A, Rivara D, Teisseire B, Atlan G, Rapin M. tatic pulmonary pressure-volume (P-V) curve, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilation and gas exchange in acute respiratory failure (ARF). American Review of Respiratory Disease. 1979:328.
O'Keefe GE, Gentilello LM, Erford S, Maier RV. Imprecision in lower "inflection point" estimation from static pressure-volume curves in patients at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome. J Trauma. 1998;44:1064–8.
Matamis D, Lemaire F, Harf A, Brun-Buisson C, Ansquer JC, Atlan G. Total respiratory pressure-volume curves in the adult respiratory distress syndrome. Chest. 1984;86:58–66.
Mercat A, Richard J-CM, Vielle B, Jaber S, Osman D, Diehl J-L, et al. Positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:646–55. doi:10.1001/jama.299.6.646.
Pintado M-C, Pablo R de, Trascasa M, Milicua J-M, Rogero S, Daguerre M, et al. Individualized PEEP setting in subjects with ARDS: a randomized controlled pilot study. Respir Care. 2013;58:1416–23. doi:10.4187/respcare.02068.
Wirth S, Baur M, Spaeth J, Guttmann J, Schumann S. Intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure evaluation using the intratidal compliance-volume profile. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114:483–90. doi:10.1093/bja/aeu385.
Zhao Z, Guttmann J, Möller K. Assessment of a volume-dependent dynamic respiratory system compliance in ALI/ARDS by pooling breathing cycles. Physiol Meas. 2012;33:N61-7. doi:10.1088/0967-3334/33/8/N61.
Schumann S, Stahl C, Steinmann D, Möller K, Guttmann J. The Gliding-SLICE method: an enhanced tool for estimation of intratidal respiratory mechanics. Crit Care. 2007;11:P204. doi:10.1186/cc5364.
Schumann S, Vimlati L, Kawati R, Guttmann J, Lichtwarck-Aschoff M. Analysis of dynamic intratidal compliance in a lung collapse model. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:1111–7. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e31820ad41b.
Guttmann J, Eberhard L, Fabry B, Zappe D, Bernhard H, Lichtwarck-Aschoff M, et al. Determination of volume-dependent respiratory system mechanics in mechanically ventilated patients using the new SLICE method. Technol Health Care. 1994;2:175–91. doi:10.3233/THC-1994-2302.
Mols G, Brandes I, Kessler V, Lichtwarck-Aschoff M, Loop T, Geiger K, Guttmann J. Volume-dependent compliance in ARDS: proposal of a new diagnostic concept. Intensive Care Med. 1999;25:1084–91.
Buehler S, Lozano-Zahonero S, Schumann S, Guttmann J. Monitoring of intratidal lung mechanics: a Graphical User Interface for a model-based decision support system for PEEP-titration in mechanical ventilation. J Clin Monit Comput. 2014;28:613–23. doi:10.1007/s10877-014-9562-x.
Devine B. Gentamicin therapy. Drug Intelligence & Clinical Pharmacy. 1974:650–5.
Mols G, Priebe H-J, Guttmann J. Alveolar recruitment in acute lung injury. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96:156–66. doi:10.1093/bja/aei299.
Schumann S, Burcza B, Haberthür C, Lichtwarck-Aschoff M, Guttmann J. Estimating intratidal nonlinearity of respiratory system mechanics: a model study using the enhanced gliding-SLICE method. Physiol Meas. 2009;30:1341–56. doi:10.1088/0967-3334/30/12/004.
Frerichs I, Amato MBP, van Kaam AH, Tingay DG, Zhao Z, Grychtol B, et al. Chest electrical impedance tomography examination, data analysis, terminology, clinical use and recommendations: consensus statement of the TRanslational EIT developmeNt stuDy group. Thorax. 2017;72:83–93. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208357.
Zhao Z, Möller K, Steinmann D, Guttmann J. Determination of lung area in electrical impedance tomography images. Crit Care. 2009;13:P51. doi:10.1186/cc7215.
Luepschen H, Meier T, Grossherr M, Leibecke T, Karsten J, Leonhardt S. Protective ventilation using electrical impedance tomography. Physiol Meas. 2007;28:S247-60. doi:10.1088/0967-3334/28/7/S18.
Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using Effect Size-or Why the P Value Is Not Enough. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4:279–82. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1.
Wirth S, Kreysing M, Spaeth J, Schumann S. Intraoperative compliance profiles and regional lung ventilation improve with increasing positive end-expiratory pressure. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2016;60:1241–50. doi:10.1111/aas.12767.
Zerah F, Harf A, Perlemuter L, Lorino H, Lorino AM, Atlan G. Effects of obesity on respiratory resistance. Chest. 1993;103:1470–6. doi:10.1378/chest.103.5.1470.
Pinsky MR. The hemodynamic consequences of mechanical ventilation: an evolving story. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23:493–503. doi:10.1007/s001340050364.
Gernoth C, Wagner G, Pelosi P, Luecke T. Respiratory and haemodynamic changes during decremental open lung positive end-expiratory pressure titration in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care. 2009;13:R59. doi:10.1186/cc7786.
Fengmei G, Jin C, Songqiao L, Congshan Y, Yi Y. Dead space fraction changes during PEEP titration following lung recruitment in patients with ARDS. Respir Care. 2012;57:1578–85. doi:10.4187/respcare.01497.
Lowhagen K, Lundin S, Stenqvist O. Regional intratidal gas distribution in acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome assessed by electric impedance tomography. Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76:1024–35.
Heines SJH, Strauch U, van de Poll MCG, Roekaerts PMHJ, Bergmans DCJJ. Clinical implementation of electric impedance tomography in the treatment of ARDS: a single centre experience. J Clin Monit Comput. 2019;33:291–300. doi:10.1007/s10877-018-0164-x.
He X, Jiang J, Liu Y, Xu H, Zhou S, Yang S, et al. Electrical Impedance Tomography-guided PEEP Titration in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e3306. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000003306.
Talmor D, Sarge T, Malhotra A, O'Donnell CR, Ritz R, Lisbon A, et al. Mechanical ventilation guided by esophageal pressure in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2095–104. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0708638.
Gattinoni L, Caironi P, Valenza F, Carlesso E. The role of CT-scan studies for the diagnosis and therapy of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Clin Chest Med. 2006;27:559-70; abstract vii. doi:10.1016/j.ccm.2006.06.002.
Stahl CA, Möller K, Schumann S, Kuhlen R, Sydow M, Putensen C, Guttmann J. Dynamic versus static respiratory mechanics in acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:2090–8. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000227220.67613.0D.
Brismar B, Hedenstierna G, Lundquist H, Strandberg A, Svensson L, Tokics L. Pulmonary densities during anesthesia with muscular relaxation--a proposal of atelectasis. Anesthesiology. 1985;62:422–8.
Bendixen HH, Hedley-Whyte J, Laver MB. Impaired oxygenation in surgical patients during general anesthesia with controlled vntilation — a concept of atelectasis. N Engl J Med. 1963;269:991–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM196311072691901.
van der Burg PS, Miedema M, Jongh FH de, van Kaam AH. Unilateral atelectasis in a preterm infant monitored with electrical impedance tomography: a case report. Eur J Pediatr. 2014;173:1715–7. doi:10.1007/s00431-014-2399-y.
Scaramuzzo G, Spadaro S, Waldmann AD, Böhm SH, Ragazzi R, Marangoni E, et al. Heterogeneity of regional inflection points from pressure-volume curves assessed by electrical impedance tomography. Crit Care. 2019;23:119. doi:10.1186/s13054-019-2417-6.

Table 1: Patients characteristics (n = 48).

Parameter	Control (n = 23)	Intervention (n = 25)
Age (yr)	50.1 (17.0)	45.0 (16.0)
Gender (n), female/male	12/11	6/21
ASA I/II/III (n)	10/12/1	8/17/0
PBW (kg)	47.4 (2.6)	48.3 (2.6)
ABW (kg)	73.7 (13.7)	79.6 (14.5)
BMI (kg·m^-2)	24.5 (3.3)	26.5 (5.2)

ASA, physical status according to the American Association of Anesthesiologists; PBW, predicted body weight; ABW, actual body weight; BMI, body mass index.

Table 2: Respiratory and hemodynamic variables.

Variable	Control *(n = 23)*	Intervention *(n = 25)*	p-value
V_T (mL)	541.9 (71.9)	552.6 (61.9)	0.565
V_T PBW (mL·kg^-1)	7.4 (0.9)	7.1 (0.9)	0.300
VF (·min^-1)	11.8 (1.3)	11.7 (1.7)	0.843
PIP (cmH₂O)	16.6 (2.7)	17.1 (3.1)	0.722
P_Plat(cmH₂O)	14.0 (2.3)	14.3 (2.4)	0.656
P_mean(cmH₂O)	8.6 (0.9)	8.3 (0.9)	0.400
PEEP (cmH₂O)	5.0 (0.0)	5.8 (1.1)	<0.001
ΔP (cmH₂O)	8.9 (2.3)	8.5 (2.0)	0.695
C_RS (mL·cmH₂O^-1)	63.2 (14.0)	67.8 (15.9)	0.508
FiO₂	60.6 (1.6)	60.4 (1.5)	0.802
SpO₂	99.1 (0.8)	98.8 (0.9)	0.177
PetCO₂ (mmHg)	37.4 (1.5)	38.9 (4.6)	0.296
Heart rate (·min^-1)	54.9 (7.8)	55.4 (9.0)	0.796
BP_sys(mmHg)	101.1 (10.2)	100.4 (11.6)	0.236
BP_dias(mmHg)	62.8 (12.5)	61.7 (12.3)	0.667
MAP (mmHg)	75.6 (11.0)	74.6 (11.1)	0.296
Duration of anesthesia (min)	83.2 (33.3)	87.5 (28.7)	0.378

V_T, tidal volume; V_T PBW, tidal volume per predicted body weight; VF, ventilation frequency; PIP, peak inspiratory pressure; P_Plat, plateau pressure; P_mean, mean airway pressure; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure; ΔP, driving pressure; C_RS, respiratory system compliance; FiO₂, fraction of inspired oxygen; SpO₂, peripheral oxygen saturation; PetCO₂, end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure; BP_sys, systolic blood pressure; BP_dias, diastolic blood pressure; MAP, mean arterial pressure.

Table 3: Frequencies of compliance profiles from 48 patients.

Compliance profile	Control *(n = 23)*	Intervention *(n = 25)*	p-value
Horizontal (%)	85.5 (28.1)	92.8 (9.6)	0.1162
Merely Increasing (%)	9.6 (20.8)	3.5 (6.4)	0.1727
Increasing-horizontal (%)	3.8 (8.5)	2.9 (4.8)	0.6626
Merely Decreasing (%)	0.2 (0.5)	0	0.4379
Horizontal-decreasing (%)	0.2 (0.8)	0.6 (1.9)	0.0797
Mixed (%)	0.7 (3.0)	0.4 (1.6)	0.6816

Differences between the two groups were assessed with Mann-Whitney U tests. Frequencies were adapted to the duration of mechanical ventilation.

Table 4: Gain, loss and tidal variation.

Gain and loss, dorsal and ventral	Control *(n = 23)*	Intervention *(n = 25)*	p-value
Gain ventral [%]	18.8 (15.5)	29.3 (17.6)	0.056
Loss ventral [%]	41.0 (16.3)	29.7 (16.8)	0.039
Gain dorsal [%]	14.3 (11.9)	24.6 (13.0)	0.013
Loss dorsal [%]	25.9 (13.8)	16.4 (12.7)	0.028
TV_v [%]	63.9 (13.1)	60.2 (15.1)	0.368
TV_d [%]	36.1 (13.1)	39.8 (15.1)	0.368

Differences between the two groups were assessed with Mann-Whitney U tests. TV_v, percentage of tidal volume in ventral lung areas; TV_d, percentage of tidal volume in dorsal lung areas.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 20 Feb, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Anesthesiology →

Editorial decision: Major revision
11 Nov, 2019
Review #2 received at journal
03 Nov, 2019
Review #1 received at journal
22 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
21 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
20 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited by journal
19 Oct, 2019
Editor assigned by journal
18 Oct, 2019
Submission checks completed at journal
17 Oct, 2019
Editor invited by journal
17 Oct, 2019

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Individualized PEEP titration guided by intratidal compliance profile analysis improves regional ventilation – a randomized controlled trial

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 2

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 2