Validation of Airway Occlusion Pressure as a Method of Assessing Breathing Effort During Noninvasive Ventilation.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Respiratory care Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1089/respcare.12324
Emiliano Gogniat, Emilio Steinberg, Norberto Tiribelli, Mariano Setten, Facundo J Gutierrez, Gustavo A Plotnikow
{"title":"Validation of Airway Occlusion Pressure as a Method of Assessing Breathing Effort During Noninvasive Ventilation.","authors":"Emiliano Gogniat, Emilio Steinberg, Norberto Tiribelli, Mariano Setten, Facundo J Gutierrez, Gustavo A Plotnikow","doi":"10.1089/respcare.12324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The airway-occlusion pressure is used to estimate the muscle pressure (<math><mrow><msub><mtext>P</mtext><mtext>mus</mtext></msub></mrow></math>) and the occlusion pressure at 100 ms (<math><mrow><msub><mtext>P</mtext><mrow><mtext>0</mtext><mtext>.1</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow></math>) to assess respiratory drive in patients on mechanical ventilation. However, the validity of these maneuvers during noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has not been evaluated. This study was designed to validate the airway-occlusion pressure and the <math><mrow><msub><mtext>P</mtext><mrow><mtext>0</mtext><mtext>.1</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow></math> described for mechanical ventilation during NIV in a bench model. <b>Methods:</b> This was a bench observational prospective study carried out during January and February 2024 in the ICU laboratory of the Hospital Británico of Buenos Aires. <b>Results:</b> In the non-leakage NIV scenarios with oronasal and total face mask, the NIV-airway-occlusion pressure increased with greater <math><mrow><msub><mtext>P</mtext><mtext>mus</mtext></msub></mrow></math> (<i>P</i> < .001). For a programmed <math><mrow><msub><mtext>P</mtext><mtext>mus</mtext></msub></mrow></math> of 5 cm H<sub>2</sub>O, values around 4.5 cm H<sub>2</sub>O were recorded for both oronasal and total face masks. At 10 cm H<sub>2</sub>O, the values were ∼8 cm H<sub>2</sub>O, and at 15 cm H<sub>2</sub>O, they were ∼11 cm H<sub>2</sub>O. With leaks, this difference worsened as leakage increased and the effort decreased. In the Bland-Altman analysis between mechanical ventilation-airway-occlusion pressure and NIV-airway-occlusion pressure without leakage for oronasal and total face masks, we found a good agreement for the 3 levels of <math><mrow><msub><mtext>P</mtext><mtext>mus</mtext></msub></mrow></math> with both types of masks. With regard to the values of NIV-airway-occlusion pressure with the helmet, Bland-Altman analysis showed a high bias and random error. Multivariate analysis found that NIV-airway-occlusion pressure depends on the type of interface, increased with <math><mrow><msub><mtext>P</mtext><mtext>mus</mtext></msub></mrow></math>, and decreased as leakage increased. The agreement of NIV-<math><mrow><msub><mtext>P</mtext><mrow><mtext>0</mtext><mtext>.1</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow></math> was not good across all noninvasive measurements. <b>Conclusions:</b> This study constitutes a relevant contribution in the validation of indices to assess <math><mrow><msub><mtext>P</mtext><mtext>mus</mtext></msub></mrow></math> during NIV. In a laboratory setting, the measurement of airway-occlusion pressure in NIV may be used to assess effort estimation in the absence of leakage; however, it will likely be underestimated. <math><mrow><msub><mtext>P</mtext><mrow><mtext>0</mtext><mtext>.1</mtext></mrow></msub></mrow></math> proved to be an unreliable method. These findings suggest the feasibility of assessing muscle effort during NIV.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":"368-376"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/respcare.12324","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The airway-occlusion pressure is used to estimate the muscle pressure (Pmus) and the occlusion pressure at 100 ms (P0.1) to assess respiratory drive in patients on mechanical ventilation. However, the validity of these maneuvers during noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has not been evaluated. This study was designed to validate the airway-occlusion pressure and the P0.1 described for mechanical ventilation during NIV in a bench model. Methods: This was a bench observational prospective study carried out during January and February 2024 in the ICU laboratory of the Hospital Británico of Buenos Aires. Results: In the non-leakage NIV scenarios with oronasal and total face mask, the NIV-airway-occlusion pressure increased with greater Pmus (P < .001). For a programmed Pmus of 5 cm H2O, values around 4.5 cm H2O were recorded for both oronasal and total face masks. At 10 cm H2O, the values were ∼8 cm H2O, and at 15 cm H2O, they were ∼11 cm H2O. With leaks, this difference worsened as leakage increased and the effort decreased. In the Bland-Altman analysis between mechanical ventilation-airway-occlusion pressure and NIV-airway-occlusion pressure without leakage for oronasal and total face masks, we found a good agreement for the 3 levels of Pmus with both types of masks. With regard to the values of NIV-airway-occlusion pressure with the helmet, Bland-Altman analysis showed a high bias and random error. Multivariate analysis found that NIV-airway-occlusion pressure depends on the type of interface, increased with Pmus, and decreased as leakage increased. The agreement of NIV-P0.1 was not good across all noninvasive measurements. Conclusions: This study constitutes a relevant contribution in the validation of indices to assess Pmus during NIV. In a laboratory setting, the measurement of airway-occlusion pressure in NIV may be used to assess effort estimation in the absence of leakage; however, it will likely be underestimated. P0.1 proved to be an unreliable method. These findings suggest the feasibility of assessing muscle effort during NIV.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无创通气期间气道闭塞压力作为评估呼吸努力的方法的验证。
背景:气道闭塞压用于估计肌肉压力(Pmus)和100 ms时的闭塞压(P0.1),以评估机械通气患者的呼吸驱动。然而,这些操作在无创通气(NIV)期间的有效性尚未得到评估。本研究旨在通过台架模型验证NIV期间机械通气的气道闭塞压力和P0.1。方法:本研究于2024年1月至2月在布宜诺斯艾利斯Británico医院ICU实验室进行了一项前瞻性研究。结果:在使用口鼻面罩和全面罩的无泄漏NIV情况下,NIV-气道闭塞压力随Pmus的增大而增加(ppmus为5 cm H2O,口鼻面罩和全面罩的数值均在4.5 cm H2O左右)。在10 cm H2O下,值为~ 8 cm H2O,在15 cm H2O下,值为~ 11 cm H2O。随着泄漏的增加和工作量的减少,这种差异会恶化。在Bland-Altman对机械通气-气道闭塞压力和niv -气道闭塞压力无泄漏的口鼻面罩和全面罩的分析中,我们发现两种类型的面罩在Pmus的3个水平上有很好的一致性。对于带头盔的niv -气道闭塞压力值,Bland-Altman分析存在高偏倚和随机误差。多因素分析发现,niv -气道闭塞压力与口罩类型有关,随Pmus增加而增加,随泄漏增加而降低。在所有无创测量中NIV-P0.1的一致性并不好。结论:本研究对NIV期间评估Pmus的指标的验证做出了相关贡献。在实验室环境中,在无泄漏的情况下,NIV中气道闭塞压力的测量可用于评估努力估计;然而,它可能会被低估。P0.1被证明是一种不可靠的方法。这些发现表明评估NIV期间肌肉用力的可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Respiratory care
Respiratory care 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
16.00%
发文量
209
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.
期刊最新文献
Femoral Muscle Volume Change and Postextubation Respiratory Support in Infants After Cardiac Surgery. Characteristics of the Five Different Types of Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation. Understanding the Control of Breathing to Optimize Patient Ventilator Interactions. Postacute Ventilator Weaning and Discharge Outcomes in Individuals With Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Retrospective Analysis. Methemoglobin and Nitrogen Dioxide Levels During Inhaled Nitric Oxide Therapy at 300 Parts per Million in Healthy Volunteers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1