High Respiratory Effort During Invasive Pressure Support Ventilation

<h3>Background</h3> High respiratory effort may be common in invasively ventilated patients receiving pressure support ventilation, but its epidemiologic characteristics are unclear. <h3>Research Question</h3> What are the epidemiologic characteristics of high respiratory efforts in critically ill patients, does agreement exist between high respiratory drive and high respiratory effort, what are clinician responses during such events, and what is the relationship between those with clinical parameters and outcomes? <h3>Study Design and Methods</h3> This clinician-masked, prospective, observational study in 2 centers measured the drop in airway pressure during the first 100 ms of an inspiratory effort with an occluded airway (P<sub>0.1</sub>), a validated noninvasive measure of respiratory drive, in patients receiving pressure support ventilation for > 24 hours. We also measured estimated respiratory muscle pressure (<sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub>), a validated surrogate of inspiratory effort. We measured <sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub> and P<sub>0.1</sub> twice daily. <h3>Results</h3> Of 528 ventilated patients, 80 patients received pressure support ventilation for > 24 hours. Among them, 33 patients (41%) exhibited high respiratory effort, which was more common in COVID-19 ARDS, with 19 of such patients (58%) reached the predefined threshold vs 14 patients (27%) in the non-COVID-19 cohort (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.9-14.9; <i>P</i> = .001). Moreover, 36% of P<sub>0.1</sub> values were ≥ 4 cm H<sub>2</sub>O, indicating high respiratory drive. Moderate agreement was found between <sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub> and P<sub>0.1</sub> measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.65), suggesting significant discrepancies between those 2 parameters. Clinician-directed management based on usual clinical observations (but masked to P<sub>0.1</sub> and <sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub>) rarely changed in the presence of high respiratory effort. Higher <sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub> and its concomitant elevation with P<sub>0.1</sub> were associated with worse blood gas parameters and respiratory mechanics. A concomitant elevation of both <sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub> and P<sub>0.1</sub> was associated independently with a decreased likelihood of being alive and ventilator-free up to day 28 (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.06-0.87; <i>P</i> = .037). <h3>Interpretation</h3> In this study, many critical care patients receiving invasive pressure support ventilation exhibited high respiratory efforts. In these patients, adjustments to ventilator settings were uncommon, despite association with worse clinical parameters and outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
CHEST Critical Care
Published
2025-03-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chstcc.2025.100147
Primary Topic
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

High Respiratory Effort During Invasive Pressure Support Ventilation

Rinaldo Bellomo, Fumitaka Yanase, Sofia Spano, Zachary O’Brien et al.
CHEST Critical Care
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
article

High Respiratory Effort During Invasive Pressure Support Ventilation

Rinaldo Bellomo, Fumitaka Yanase, Sofia Spano, Zachary O’Brien, Ary Serpa Neto, Glenn M. Eastwood, Akinori Maeda, Joanna W. Y. Chow, Anis Chaba, Atthaphong Phongphithakchai, Ahmad Bassam, Wisam Al‐Bassam, Stefanos Hadzakis, Lucinda Roberts
article en

Abstract

<h3>Background</h3> High respiratory effort may be common in invasively ventilated patients receiving pressure support ventilation, but its epidemiologic characteristics are unclear. <h3>Research Question</h3> What are the epidemiologic characteristics of high respiratory efforts in critically ill patients, does agreement exist between high respiratory drive and high respiratory effort, what are clinician responses during such events, and what is the relationship between those with clinical parameters and outcomes? <h3>Study Design and Methods</h3> This clinician-masked, prospective, observational study in 2 centers measured the drop in airway pressure during the first 100 ms of an inspiratory effort with an occluded airway (P<sub>0.1</sub>), a validated noninvasive measure of respiratory drive, in patients receiving pressure support ventilation for > 24 hours. We also measured estimated respiratory muscle pressure (<sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub>), a validated surrogate of inspiratory effort. We measured <sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub> and P<sub>0.1</sub> twice daily. <h3>Results</h3> Of 528 ventilated patients, 80 patients received pressure support ventilation for > 24 hours. Among them, 33 patients (41%) exhibited high respiratory effort, which was more common in COVID-19 ARDS, with 19 of such patients (58%) reached the predefined threshold vs 14 patients (27%) in the non-COVID-19 cohort (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.9-14.9; <i>P</i> = .001). Moreover, 36% of P<sub>0.1</sub> values were ≥ 4 cm H<sub>2</sub>O, indicating high respiratory drive. Moderate agreement was found between <sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub> and P<sub>0.1</sub> measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.65), suggesting significant discrepancies between those 2 parameters. Clinician-directed management based on usual clinical observations (but masked to P<sub>0.1</sub> and <sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub>) rarely changed in the presence of high respiratory effort. Higher <sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub> and its concomitant elevation with P<sub>0.1</sub> were associated with worse blood gas parameters and respiratory mechanics. A concomitant elevation of both <sub>e</sub>P<sub>musc</sub> and P<sub>0.1</sub> was associated independently with a decreased likelihood of being alive and ventilator-free up to day 28 (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.06-0.87; <i>P</i> = .037). <h3>Interpretation</h3> In this study, many critical care patients receiving invasive pressure support ventilation exhibited high respiratory efforts. In these patients, adjustments to ventilator settings were uncommon, despite association with worse clinical parameters and outcomes.

CHEST Critical CareVol. 3(2)
The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU), Box Hill Hospital (AU), The University of Melbourne (AU), Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (BR), Austin Hospital (AU), Monash Medical Centre (AU), Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR), Eastern Health (AU), Monash Health (AU), Hôpital Saint-Louis (FR), Alfred Health (AU), Austin Health (AU)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 93%
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.