Patient-ventilator asynchronies: may the respiratory mechanics play a role?
Critical Care, March 2013
Annalisa Carlucci, Lara Pisani, Piero Ceriana, Alberto Malovini, Stefano Nava
INTRODUCTION: The mechanisms leading to patient/ventilator asynchrony has never been systematically assessed. We studied the possible association between asynchrony and respiratory mechanics in patients ready to be enrolled for a home non-invasive ventilatory program. Secondarily, we looked for possible differences in the amount of asynchronies between obstructive and restrictive patients and a possible role of asynchrony in influencing the tolerance of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). METHODS: The respiratory pattern and mechanics of 69 consecutive patients with chronic respiratory failure were recorded during spontaneous breathing. After that patients underwent non-invasive ventilation for 60 minutes with a "dedicated" NIV platform in a pressure support mode during the day. In the last 15 minutes of this period, asynchrony events were detected and classified as ineffective effort (IE), double triggering (DT) and auto-triggering (AT). RESULTS: The overall number of asynchronies was not influenced by any variable of respiratory mechanics or by the underlying pathologies (that is, obstructive vs restrictive patients). There was a high prevalence of asynchrony events (58% of patients). IEs were the most frequent asynchronous events (45% of patients) and were associated with a higher level of pressure support. A high incidence of asynchrony events and IE were associated with a poor tolerance of NIV. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that in non-invasively ventilated patients for a chronic respiratory failure, the incidence of patient-ventilator asynchronies was relatively high, but did not correlate with any parameters of respiratory mechanics or underlying disease.
|Members of the public||3||43%|
|Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals)||2||29%|
|Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors)||1||14%|
|Readers by professional status||Count||As %|
|Student > Master||14||16%|
|Student > Postgraduate||10||11%|
|Student > Ph. D. Student||9||10%|
|Readers by discipline||Count||As %|
|Medicine and Dentistry||56||63%|
|Nursing and Health Professions||8||9%|
|Agricultural and Biological Sciences||1||1%|