Automated mechanical ventilation using Adaptive Support Ventilation versus conventional ventilation including ventilator length of stay, mortality, and professional social aspects of adoption of new technology

Abstract             

Background

Automation of mechanical ventilation allows for reduction of variation in patient management and has the potential to provide increased patient safety by strict adherence to computer driven ventilator protocols. 

Methods

A retrospective, observational study compared a group of 196 of general ICU patients managed exclusively on automated mechanical ventilation, adaptive support ventilation (ASV), to another group of 684 managed by usual, non-automated mechanical ventilation (No ASV). The data was collected in a unique access database designed to collect data for assessment of mechanical ventilation outcomes in a small medical center ICU. 

Results

The length of ventilator stay was non-significant between both groups, (81.7 ± 35.2 hours) in the ASV group; vs. (94.1 ± 35.1 hours) in the No ASV. Percent mortality was significantly less in the ASV group, 8.6% compared to 27.3% in the No ASV.  

Conclusion

Automated ventilation appears to be a safe ventilator strategy; however, cause effect relationships cannot be determined without further, more sophisticated studies.

Keywords

Closed loop ventilation, ASV, Ventilator length of stay, Percent minute ventilation

References

1. Sulzer CF, Chiolero R, Chassot PG, et al. Adaptive support ventilation for fast tracheal extubation after cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled study. Anesthesiology 2001; 95(6):1339-1345.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200112000-00010

PMid:11748389

2. Moradian ST, Saeid Y, Ebadi A, et al. Adaptive Support Ventilation reduces the incidence of atelectasis in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: A randomized clinical trial. Anesth Pain Med. 2017; 22;7(3):e44614.

https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm.44619

PMid:28856111 PMCid:PMC5561444

3. Petter AH, Chiolero RL, Cassina T, et al. Automatic “respirator/weaning” with adaptive support ventilation: the effect on duration of endotracheal intubation and patient management. Anesth Analg 2003; 97(6):1743-1750.

https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000086728.36285.BE

PMid:14633553

4. Campbell RS, Sinamban RP, Johannigman JA, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new closed loop ventilation mode: adaptive supportive ventilation (ASV). Critical Care 1999; 3(Suppl 1): P038.

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc413

PMCid:PMC3301741

5. Van der Staay M, Chatburn RL. Advanced modes of mechanical ventilation and optimal targeting schemes., Intensive Care Med Exp 2018; 22;6(1):30.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-018-0195-0

PMid:30136011 PMCid:PMC6104409

6. Linton DM, Potgieter PD, Davis S, et al. Automatic weaning from mechanical ventilation using an adaptive lung ventilation controller. Chest 1994; 106:1843-1850.

https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.106.6.1843

PMid:7988211

7. Laubscher TP, Frutiger A, Fanconi S, et al. The automatic selection of ventilation parameters during the initial phase of mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22(3):199-207.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01712237

PMid:8727432

8. Schaublin J, Derighetti M, Feigenwinter P, et al. Fuzzy logic control of mechanical ventilation during anaesthesia. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1996; 77: 636-641.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/77.5.636

PMid:8957981

9. Branson RD, Johannigman JA, Campbell RS, et al. Closed-Loop Mechanical Ventilation. Respir Care 2002; 47(4):427-451.

• PMID: 11929616

10. Sanderson R, Wheatley D, Soca K, et al. Comparison of Ventilator Stay and Mortality between Closed-Loop/Non-closed Loop Mechanical Ventilation”, Respir Care 2005; 50(11).

11. Quan SF, Parides GC, Knoper SR. Mandatory minute volume (MMV) ventilation: an overview. Respir Care 1990; 35(9):898-905.

12. Sviri S, Bayya A, Levin P. et al. Intelligent ventilation in the intensive care unit. J Crit Care 2012; 28(1):6-12.

https://doi.org/10.7196/sajcc.130

13. Otis AB, Fenn WO, Rhan H. Mechanics of Breathing in Man, J Appl Physiol 1950; 2:592-607.

https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1950.2.11.592

PMid:15436363

14. Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Russo R. Reduced tidal volumes and lung protective ventilatory strategies: Where do we go from here? Current Opinion in Critical Care 2002; 8(1):45-50.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00075198-200202000-00008

PMid:12205406

15. Vogelsang, H, Uhlig T. A prospective randomized study on clinical and economical aspects of closed loop control and common weaning protocols after cardiac surgery. Critical Care 2007; (Suppl 2):173.

16. Wheatley D, Young, K. Adaptive support ventilation. What is it? Beneficial or not? J Mech Vent 2020; 2(1):34-44.

https://doi.org/10.53097/JMV.10026

17. Marini JJ, Crooke PS, Truwit JD. Determinants and limits of pressure-preset ventilation: a mathematical model of pressure control, Journal of Applied Physiology 1989; 67:1081-1092.

https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1989.67.3.1081

PMid:2676950

18. Otis AB. The work of breathing. In: Fenn WO and Rahn H, editors. Handbook of Physiology. Section 3: Respiration. Washington DC: American Physiological Society; 1964:463-476.

19. Linton DM, Renov G, Lafair J, ET AL. Adaptive Support Ventilation as the Sole Mode of Ventilatory Support in Chronically Ventilated Patients, Critical Care and Resuscitation 2006; 8:11-14.