A comparative analysis of mechanical power and Its components in pressure-controlled ventilation mode and AVM-2 mode

Kensuke Takaoka, Shane Toma, Philip Lee, Ehab G Daoud

Abstract

Background

Mechanical ventilation is a critical therapeutic intervention in the management of patients with respiratory failure. Understanding the implications of different ventilation modes is essential in preventing ventilator-induced lung injuries (VILI). Recently, mechanical power has emerged as a critical element in the development of VILI and mortality. Previous bench work studies have suggested that new optimal (adaptive) modes, such as Adaptive Ventilation Mode 2 (AVM-2), can reduce the mechanical power in turn might reduce the rates of VILI. This study aims to compare the conventional Pressure-Controlled Ventilation (PCV) mode with an emerging design of Adaptive Ventilation Mode-2 (AVM-2), to measure the differences in mechanical power, alongside it’s components of PEEP, Tidal, Elastic, Resistive, Inspiratory, Total work, tidal volume, driving pressure and Power Compliance Index.

Methods

Between January 2023 and June of 2023, we conducted a prospective crossover study on twenty-two subjects admitted to our ICU within the first day after initiation of mechanical ventilation. Subjects were initially started on PCV settings chosen by the primary treatment team, then switched to AVM-2 with comparable minute ventilation. Mechanical power and its work components (tidal, resistive, PEEP, elastic, inspiratory, total), tidal volume, driving pressure, respiratory rate, and positive end-expiratory pressure, were recorded for each patient every 15 min for the duration of 2 consecutive hours on each mode. Statistical analysis, including paired t-tests were performed to assess the significance of differences between the two ventilation modes. The data is provided in means and 土 SD.

Results

There were significant differences between PCV and AVM-2 in mechanical power (J/min): 21.62 土 7.61  vs 14.21 土 6.41 (P < 0.001), PEEP work (J): 4.83 土 2.71 vs 4.11 土 2.51 (P < 0.001), Tidal work (J): 3.83 土 1.51 vs 2.21 土 0.89 (P < 0.001), Elastic work (J): 8.62 土 3.13 vs 6.32 土 3.21 (P < 0.001), Resistive work (J): 3.23 土 1.61 vs 1.81 土 1.31 (P 0.013), Inspiratory work (J): 6.95 土 2.58 vs 4.05 土 2.01 (P < 0.001), Total work (J): 11.81 土 3.81 vs 8.11 土 4.23 (P < 0.001). There were significant differences between PCV and AVM-2 in tidal volume (ml): 511 土 8.22 vs 413 土 10.21 (P < 0.001), tidal volume / IBW 7.38 土 1.74 vs 6.49 土 1.72 (P 0.004), driving pressure (cmH2O): 24.45 土 6.29 vs 20.11 土 6.59 (P 0.012), minute ventilation (L/min): 8.96 土 1.34 vs 7.42 土 1.41 (P < 0.001). The respiratory rate (bpm) was not significantly different between PCV and AVM-2 19.61 土 4.32 vs 18.32 土 1.43 (P 0.176). There were no significant differences between PCV and AVM-2 in static compliance (ml/cmH2O) 20.24 土 5.16 vs 22.72 土 6.79 (P 0.346), PaCO2 (mmHg) 44.94 土 9.62 vs 44.13 土 10.11 (P 0.825), and PaO2:FiO2 243.54 土 109.85 vs 274.21 土 125.13 (P 0.343), but significantly higher power compliance index in PCV vs AVM-2: 1.11 土 0.41 vs 0.71 土 0.33 (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that the choice of mechanical ventilation mode, whether PCV or AVM-2, significantly impacts mechanical power and its constituent variables. AVM-2 mode was associated with reduced mechanical power, and its’ components alongside the driving pressure, and tidal volumes, indicating its potential superiority in terms of lung-protective ventilation strategies. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting the most appropriate ventilation mode to minimize the risk of ventilator-associated complications and improve patient outcomes. Further research is warranted to explore the clinical implications of these findings and to refine best practices in mechanical ventilation.

Key words

Mechanical power, Work, PCV, AVM-2, VILI

References

1. Gattinoni L, Carlesso E, Caironi P. Stress and strain within the lung. Curr Opin Crit Care 2012; 18(1):42-47. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0b013e32834f17d9 PMid:22157254

2. Bates JH, Smith BJ. Ventilator-induced lung injury and lung mechanics. Ann transl med 2018;6(19):378. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.06.29 PMid:30460252 PMCid:PMC6212358

3. Cruz FF, Ball L, Rocco PRM, et al. Ventilator-induced lung injury during controlled ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: less is probably better. Expert Rev Respir Med 2018;12(5):403-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2018.1457954 PMid:29575957

4. Gattinoni L, Tonetti T, Cressoni M, et al. Ventilator-related causes of lung injury: the mechanical power. Intensive Care Med 2016;42:1567-1575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4505-2 PMid:27620287

5. Serpa Neto A, Deliberato RO, Johnson AE, et al. Mechanical power of ventilation is associated with mortality in critically ill patients: an analysis of patients in two observational cohorts. Intensive Care Med 2018; 44:1914-1922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5375-6 PMid:30291378

6. Zhang Z, Zheng B, Liu N, et al. Mechanical power normalized to predicted body weight as a predictor of mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 2019; 45:856-864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05627-9 PMid:31062050

7. McKibben AW, Ravenscraft SA. Pressure-controlled and volume-cycled mechanical ventilation. Clin Chest Med 1996;17(3):395-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-5231(05)70323-3 PMid:8875003

8. MacIntyre NR, Gropper C, Westfall T. Combining pressure-limiting and volume-cycling features in a patient-interactive mechanical breath. Crit Care Med 1994; 22(2):353-357. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199402000-00030 PMid:8306697

9. Otis AB, Fenn WO, Rahn H. Mechanics of breathing in man. J Appl Physiol 1950; 2(11):592-607. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1950.2.11.592 PMid:15436363

10. van der Staay M, Chatburn RL. Advanced modes of mechanical ventilation and optimal targeting schemes. Intensive Care Med Exp 2018; 6(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-018-0195-0 PMid:30136011 PMCid:PMC6104409

11. Becher T, Adelmeier A, Frerichs I, et al. Adaptive mechanical ventilation with automated minimization of mechanical power-a pilot randomized cross-over study. Crit Care 2019; 23(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2610-7 PMid:31666136 PMCid:PMC6822420

12. Shah P, Yeo J, Techasatian W, et al. Mechanical power in AVM-2 versus conventional ventilation modes in a normal lung model: A bench study. J Mech Vent 2022; 3(2):45-54. https://doi.org/10.53097/JMV.10047

13. Yeo J, Shah P, Koichi K, et al. Mechanical power in AVM-2 versus conventional ventilation modes in in various ARDS lung models: A bench study. J Mech Vent 2022; 3(3):110-122. https://doi.org/10.53097/JMV.10056

14. Paudel R, Trinkle CA, Waters CM, et al. Mechanical power: A new concept in mechanical ventilation. Am J Med Sci 2021; 362(6):537-545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2021.09.004 PMid:34597688 PMCid:PMC8688297

15. Becher T, Van der Staay M, Schädler D, et al. Calculation of mechanical power for pressure-controlled ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2019; 45:1321-1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05636-8 PMid:31101961

16. Gunchan Paul MRK, PL Gautam. 4DPRR- Index for predicting mortality in COVID-19 ARDS. J Mech Vent 2022; 3(2):56-61. https://doi.org/10.53097/JMV.10048

17. Hamahata NT, Sato R, Daoud EG. Go with the flow-clinical importance of flow curves during mechanical ventilation: A narrative review. Can J Respir Ther 2020; 56:11-20. https://doi.org/10.29390/cjrt-2020-002 PMid:32844110 PMCid:PMC7427988

18. Marini JJ, Jaber S. Dynamic predictors of VILI risk: beyond the driving pressure. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42(10):1597-1600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4534-x PMid:27637717

19. Vassalli F, Pasticci I, Romitti F, et al. Does iso-mechanical power lead to iso-lung damage? An experimental study in a porcine model. Anesthesiology 2020; 132(5):1126-1137. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000003189 PMid:32032095

20. Franck CL, Franck GM, Daoud EG. Correlations of mechanical power and its components with age and its interference in the outcome of SARS-CoV-2 in subjects undergoing pressure-controlled ventilation. J Mech Vent 2022; 3(4):159-168. https://doi.org/10.53097/JMV.10063

21. Keitoku K, Yeo J, Cabbat R, et al. Mechanical power and Power Compliance Index in independent lung ventilation. New insight. J Mech Vent 2022; 3(3):124-131. https://doi.org/10.53097/JMV.10057

22. Coppola S, Caccioppola A, Froio S, et al. Effect of mechanical power on intensive care mortality in ARDS patients. Crit Care 2020;24(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-02963-x PMid:32448389 PMCid:PMC7245621

23. Network ARDS. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2000; 342(18):1301-1308. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200005043421801 PMid:10793162

24. Angus DC, Seymour CW, Bibbins-Domingo K. Caring for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: Summary of the 2023 ESICM practice guidelines. JAMA 2023; 330(4):368-371. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.6812 PMid:37329332

25. Williams EC, Motta-Ribeiro GC, Vidal Melo MF. Driving pressure and transpulmonary pressure: How do we guide safe mechanical ventilation? Anesthesiology 2019; 131(1):155-163. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002731 PMid:31094753 PMCid:PMC6639048

26. Amato MB, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2015; 372(8):747-755. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1410639 PMid:25693014

27. Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA 2016; 315(8):788-800. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0291 PMid:26903337