Effects of three spontaneous ventilation modes on respiratory drive and muscle effort in COVID-19 pneumonia patients

Abstract

Abstract Background High drive and high effort during spontaneous breathing can generate patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) due to uncontrolled high transpulmonary and transvascular pressures, with deterioration of respiratory failure. P-SILI has been demonstrated in experimental studies and supported in recent computational models. Different treatment strategies have been proposed according to the phenotype of elastance of the respiratory system (Ers) for patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to investigate the effect of three spontaneous ventilation modes on respiratory drive and muscle effort in clinical practice and their relationship with different phenotypes. This was achieved by obtaining the following respiratory signals: airway pressure (Paw), flow (V´) and volume (V) and calculating muscle pressure (Pmus). Methods A physiologic observational study of a series of cases in a university medical-surgical ICU involving 11 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia at the initiation of spontaneous breathing was conducted. Three spontaneous ventilation modes were evaluated in each of the patients: pressure support ventilation (PSV), airway pressure release ventilation (APRV), and BiLevel positive airway pressure ventilation (BIPAP). Pmus was calculated through the equation of motion. For this purpose, we acquired the signals of Paw, V´ and V directly from the data transmission protocol of the ventilator (Dräger). The main physiological measurements were calculation of the respiratory drive (P0.1), muscle effort through the ΔPmus, pressure‒time product (PTP/min) and work of breathing of the patient in joules multiplied by respiratory frequency (WOBp, J/min). Results Ten mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia at the initiation of spontaneous breathing were evaluated. Our results showed similar high drive and muscle effort in each of the spontaneous ventilatory modes tested, without significant differences between them: median (IQR): P0.1 6.28 (4.92–7.44) cm H2O, ∆Pmus 13.48 (11.09–17.81) cm H2O, PTP 166.29 (124.02–253.33) cm H2O*sec/min, and WOBp 12.76 (7.46–18.04) J/min. High drive and effort were found in patients even with low Ers. There was a significant relationship between respiratory drive and WOBp and Ers, though the coefficient of variation widely varied. Conclusions In our study, none of the spontaneous ventilatory methods tested succeeded in reducing high respiratory drive or muscle effort, regardless of the Ers, with subsequent risk of P-SILI.

Keywords

• COVID-19 pneumonia
• Muscle pressure
• Respiratory drive
• Muscle effort
• Respiratory muscle monitoring
• Mechanical ventilation