Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Commentary
  • Open Access

Automated detection of patient-ventilator asynchrony: new tool or new toy?

  • 1Email author,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Critical Care201317:1015

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc13122

  • Published:

Abstract

Although severe patient-ventilator asynchrony is frequent during invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, diagnosing such asynchronies usually requires the presence at the bedside of an experienced clinician to assess the tracings displayed on the ventilator screen, thus explaining why evaluating patient-ventilator interaction remains a challenge in daily clinical practice. In the previous issue of Critical Care, Sinderby and colleagues present a new automated method to detect, quantify, and display patient-ventilator interaction. In this validation study, the automatic method is as efficient as experts in mechanical ventilation. This promising system could help clinicians extend their knowledge about patient-ventilator interaction and further improve assisted mechanical ventilation.

Keywords

  • Pressure Support
  • Assisted Ventilation
  • Diaphragmatic Dysfunction
  • Mechanical Ventilation Duration
  • Assisted Mechanical Ventilation

In the previous issue of Critical Care, Sinderby and colleagues [1] compare the analyses by experts and by an innovative automated method to detect and quantify patient-ventilator interaction in ventilator tracings from a previously published study. There is very good agreement between the two approaches and this opens up some exciting prospects.

Indeed, even if we have successfully used patient-triggered assisted ventilation for more than 20 years and even if (compared with controlled ventilation) this allows a reduction in sedation needs [2] and a decrease in ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction [3], we still have not solved the problem of patients ‘fighting’ against their ventilators. This phenomenon, commonly called patient-ventilator asynchrony [4], is related mainly to the fact that during assisted ventilation, especially during pressure support, ventilator-delivered pressurization does not exactly match the characteristics of patients’ inspiratory demand [5]. As a consequence, severe patient-ventilator asynchrony occurs in one fourth of invasively ventilated patients [6] and in more than 40% of non-invasively ventilated patients [7].

Even if patient-ventilator asynchrony is very common, studying this phenomenon remains a challenge in daily clinical practice [8]. Indeed, its correct diagnosis usually requires the presence at the bedside of an experienced clinician to assess the tracings displayed on the ventilator screen, which is not possible 24 hours a day. Additionally, up to now, a really sensitive and reliable detection of patient-ventilator asynchronies could only be performed offline by an expert using the simultaneous recording of diaphragmatic electrical activity (Eadi) flow and pressure–time curves [8], an option clearly limited to research purposes.

Only an efficient and easy-to-use automated system could help in the real-time diagnosis of patient-ventilator asynchronies at the bedside. As the automated system introduced by Sinderby and colleagues [1] assesses patient-ventilator interaction by automatically comparing ventilator pressure and Eadi waveforms as efficiently as experienced clinicians, it provides, for the first time, a true opportunity of continuously monitoring patient-ventilator interaction in routine clinical practice. Given that a high number of asynchronies have been associated with suboptimal ventilator settings such as excessive levels of pressure support or poorly adapted expiratory trigger setting [9, 10], this new monitoring tool also offers the opportunity to better adapt ventilator settings during assisted ventilation by providing real-time feedback to intensive care clinicians. Furthermore, improved closed-loop systems using the automated detection of patient-ventilator asynchronies to continuously and automatically adapt ventilator settings could be implemented in ventilators to further improve the standard of care during mechanical ventilation.

Perhaps more importantly, poor patient-ventilator asynchrony has been associated with increased respiratory muscle workload [11], prolonged mechanical ventilation duration [6, 12], and poorer outcome in difficult-to-wean patients [13]. However, whether patient-ventilator asynchronies simply occur more frequently in more severely ill patients or whether the occurrence of patient-ventilator asynchronies is by itself responsible for the poor prognosis is still unknown. Answering this important question requires large-scale clinical studies to assess the impact on patients’ outcome of using ventilator strategies which can improve patient-ventilator synchrony, as, for instance, new ventilatory modes such as neurally adjusted ventilatory assist or proportional assist ventilation [14, 15] or Eadi-based algorithms to adapt the ventilator settings during pressure support. However, given that, until now, analyzing patient-ventilator synchrony required manual cycle-by-cycle analysis of the ventilator tracings, such large-scale studies could never be performed. By allowing an automated detection, quantification, and display of patient-ventilator asynchronies, the system introduced by Sinderby and colleagues [1] could provide the opportunity to conduct large-scale outcome studies on the impact of correcting patient-ventilator asynchrony. Finally, this system gives the possibility of diagnosing timing errors between Eadi and pressure curves with increased sensitivity compared with standard manual analysis. This, in turn, provides an interesting new tool to further assess patient-ventilator synchrony and maybe to define a cutoff between acceptable and unacceptable synchrony.

In summary, the automated system presented by Sinderby and colleagues [1] to automatically detect, quantify, and display patient-ventilator asynchrony is a promising monitoring tool that should help intensive care clinicians extend their knowledge of patient-ventilator interaction and further improve assisted mechanical ventilation.

Abbreviations

Eadi: 

Diaphragmatic electrical activity.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Adult Intensive Care and Burn Unit, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland

References

  1. Sinderby C, Liu S, Colombo D, Camarotta G, Slutsky A, Navalesi P, Beck J: An automated and standardized neural index to quantify patient-ventilator interaction. Crit Care 2013, 17: R239. 10.1186/cc13063PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Girard TD, Kress JP, Fuchs BD, Thomason JW, Schweickert WD, Pun BT, Taichman DB, Dunn JG, Pohlman AS, Kinniry PA, Jackson JC, Canonico AE, Light RW, Shintani AK, Thompson JL, Gordon SM, Hall JB, Dittus RS, Bernard GR, Ely EW: Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008, 371: 126-134. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60105-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Jaber S, Jung B, Matecki S, Petrof BJ: Clinical review: Ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction - human studies confirm animal model findings! Crit Care 2011, 15: 206. 10.1186/cc10023PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Tobin MJ, Jubran A, Laghi F: Patient-ventilator interaction. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001, 163: 1059-1063. 10.1164/ajrccm.163.5.2005125View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Yamada Y, Du HL: Analysis of the mechanisms of expiratory asynchrony in pressure support ventilation: a mathematical approach. J Appl Physiol 1985, 88: 2143-2150.Google Scholar
  6. Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, Lellouche F, Brochard L: Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2006, 32: 1515-1522. 10.1007/s00134-006-0301-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Vignaux L, Vargas F, Roeseler J, Tassaux D, Thille AW, Kossowsky MP, Brochard L, Jolliet P: Patient-ventilator asynchrony during non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: a multicenter study. Intensive Care Med 2009, 35: 840-846. 10.1007/s00134-009-1416-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Colombo D, Cammarota G, Alemani M, Carenzo L, Barra FL, Vaschetto R, Slutsky AS, Della Corte F, Navalesi P: Efficacy of ventilator waveforms observation in detecting patient-ventilator asynchrony. Crit Care Med 2011, 39: 2452-2457. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318225753cView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Thille AW, Cabello B, Galia F, Lyazidi A, Brochard L: Reduction of patient-ventilator asynchrony by reducing tidal volume during pressure-support ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2008, 34: 1477-1486. 10.1007/s00134-008-1121-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Tassaux D, Gainnier M, Battisti A, Jolliet P: Impact of expiratory trigger setting on delayed cycling and inspiratory muscle workload. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005, 172: 1283-1289. 10.1164/rccm.200407-880OCView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kondili E, Prinianakis G, Georgopoulos D: Patient-ventilator interaction. Br J Anaesth 2003, 91: 106-119. 10.1093/bja/aeg129View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. de Wit M, Miller KB, Green DA, Ostman HE, Gennings C, Epstein SK: Ineffective triggering predicts increased duration of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 2009, 37: 2740-2745. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a98a05View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chao DC, Scheinhorn DJ, Stearn-Hassenpflug M: Patient-ventilator trigger asynchrony in prolonged mechanical ventilation. Chest 1997, 112: 1592-1599. 10.1378/chest.112.6.1592View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Piquilloud L, Vignaux L, Bialais E, Roeseler J, Sottiaux T, Laterre PF, Jolliet P, Tassaux D: Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist improves patient-ventilator interaction. Intensive Care Med 2011, 37: 263-271. 10.1007/s00134-010-2052-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Alexopoulou C, Kondili E, Plataki M, Georgopoulos D: Patient-ventilator synchrony and sleep quality with proportional assist and pressure support ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2013, 39: 1040-1047. 10.1007/s00134-013-2850-yView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

Advertisement