TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of automated versus conventional ventilation on mechanical power of ventilation-A randomized crossover clinical trial
AU - Buiteman-Kruizinga, Laura A.
AU - Neto, Ary Serpa
AU - Botta, Michela
AU - List, Stephanie S.
AU - de Boer, Ben H.
AU - van Velzen, Patricia
AU - Bühler, Philipp Karl
AU - Wendel Garcia, Pedro D.
AU - Schultz, Marcus J.
AU - van der Heiden, Pim L. J.
AU - Paulus, Frederique
AU - the INTELLiPOWER-investigators
AU - Appel, Rik J. A.
AU - van den Berg, Amanda
AU - Bierlee, Marjolein C. W. M.
AU - Boezaart, Danique
AU - Boots, José A.
AU - Bosman, Bibi
AU - Bühler, Philippe
AU - Fehlbier, Kim-Jana
AU - Goossen, Robin L.
AU - Guseva, Anastasia A.
AU - Hoekstra-Kapitein, Coby
AU - Kleinert, Eva-Maria
AU - Last, Hans
AU - van Leijsen, Tobias D.
AU - Luttmer-Laven, Marieke
AU - Remmerswaal, Lotte
AU - Schriel-van den Berg, Yvonne
AU - Sinnige, Jante S.
AU - Tsonas, Anissa M.
AU - Vermeulen, Tom
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright: © 2024 Buiteman-Kruizinga et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2024/7/1
Y1 - 2024/7/1
N2 - Introduction Mechanical power of ventilation, a summary parameter reflecting the energy transferred from the ventilator to the respiratory system, has associations with outcomes. INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation is an automated ventilation mode that changes ventilator settings according to algorithms that target a low work-and force of breathing. The study aims to compare mechanical power between automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation and conventional ventilation in critically ill patients. Materials and methods International, multicenter, randomized crossover clinical trial in patients that were expected to need invasive ventilation > 24 hours. Patients were randomly assigned to start with a 3-hour period of automated ventilation or conventional ventilation after which the alternate ventilation mode was selected. The primary outcome was mechanical power in passive and active patients; secondary outcomes included key ventilator settings and ventilatory parameters that affect mechanical power. Results A total of 96 patients were randomized. Median mechanical power was not different between automated and conventional ventilation (15.8 [11.5-21.0] versus 16.1 [10.9-22.6] J/min; mean difference -0.44 (95%-CI -1.17 to 0.29) J/min; P = 0.24). Subgroup analyses showed that mechanical power was lower with automated ventilation in passive patients, 16.9 [12.5-22.1] versus 19.0 [14.1-25.0] J/min; mean difference -1.76 (95%-CI -2.47 to - 10.34J/min; P < 0.01), and not in active patients (14.6 [11.0-20.3] vs 14.1 [10.1-21.3] J/min; mean difference 0.81 (95%-CI -2.13 to 0.49) J/min; P = 0.23). Conclusions In this cohort of unselected critically ill invasively ventilated patients, automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation did not reduce mechanical power. A reduction in mechanical power was only seen in passive patients.
AB - Introduction Mechanical power of ventilation, a summary parameter reflecting the energy transferred from the ventilator to the respiratory system, has associations with outcomes. INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation is an automated ventilation mode that changes ventilator settings according to algorithms that target a low work-and force of breathing. The study aims to compare mechanical power between automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation and conventional ventilation in critically ill patients. Materials and methods International, multicenter, randomized crossover clinical trial in patients that were expected to need invasive ventilation > 24 hours. Patients were randomly assigned to start with a 3-hour period of automated ventilation or conventional ventilation after which the alternate ventilation mode was selected. The primary outcome was mechanical power in passive and active patients; secondary outcomes included key ventilator settings and ventilatory parameters that affect mechanical power. Results A total of 96 patients were randomized. Median mechanical power was not different between automated and conventional ventilation (15.8 [11.5-21.0] versus 16.1 [10.9-22.6] J/min; mean difference -0.44 (95%-CI -1.17 to 0.29) J/min; P = 0.24). Subgroup analyses showed that mechanical power was lower with automated ventilation in passive patients, 16.9 [12.5-22.1] versus 19.0 [14.1-25.0] J/min; mean difference -1.76 (95%-CI -2.47 to - 10.34J/min; P < 0.01), and not in active patients (14.6 [11.0-20.3] vs 14.1 [10.1-21.3] J/min; mean difference 0.81 (95%-CI -2.13 to 0.49) J/min; P = 0.23). Conclusions In this cohort of unselected critically ill invasively ventilated patients, automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation did not reduce mechanical power. A reduction in mechanical power was only seen in passive patients.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85199940935
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0307155
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0307155
M3 - Article
C2 - 39078857
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 19
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 7 July
M1 - e0307155
ER -