Abstract
Background:
Patient–ventilator synchrony is essential for successful patient-triggered ventilation. This study compared the ability of a trigger algorithm, based on detailed analysis of flow changes (IntelliSync+, Hamilton Medical), to trigger patient breaths with conventional algorithms.
Methods:
Three models with different lung mechanics (normal, ARDS, and COPD) at 3 severities were simulated with a lung model ventilated in pressure control continuous mandatory ventilation or pressure control continuous spontaneous ventilation (PC-CSV). Inspiratory pressure above PEEP was set at 15 cm H2O and PEEP at 5 cm H2O. Inspiratory trigger was selected from IntelliSync+ (IS+insp), flow trigger (1– 5 L/min), or pressure trigger (−1 to −5 cm H2O). In PC-CSV, expiratory trigger was set at IntelliSync+ (IS+exp) or cycling criteria (5%, 25%, and 40% for ARDS, normal, and COPD, respectively). Measurements were performed with and without leak (50% inspiratory tidal volume). Five breaths per condition were collected to calculate trigger delay time and asynchronous events.
Results:
For pressure trigger, none of the conditions resulted in 3 successfully triggered consecutive breaths. Overall trigger delay time was significantly longer with flow trigger than with IS+insp in normal (99 vs 81 ms without leak, P < .001; 98 vs 80 ms with leak, P < .001) and ARDS models (334 vs 223 ms without leak, P < .001; 320 vs 236 ms with leak, P = .02). Across all conditions, ineffective efforts occurred more frequently with flow trigger than with IS+insp (7.3% vs 1.5% without leak, P = .01; 10.8% vs 3.0% with leak, P = .01). In PC-CSV, overall cycling delay time with IS+exp was equivalent or longer compared with cycling criteria.
Conclusions:
In this lung model study, IS+insp demonstrated similar trigger time and fewer ineffective efforts compared with flow trigger even in simulated respiratory conditions, whereas cycling delay time was unaffected by IS+exp because of large variations between conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
