Airway Pressure Release Ventilation Group Research Articles

Physiological Comparison of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation and Low Tidal Volume Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundThe physiological effects of different ventilation strategies on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) need to be better understood. Research QuestionIn patients with ARDS under controlled mandatory ventilation, does airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) improve lung ventilation-perfusion matching and ventilation homogeneity compared to low tidal volume ventilation (LTV)? Study Design and MethodsThis study was a single-center randomized controlled trial. Patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS were randomly ventilated on APRV or LTV. Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) was utilized to assess lung ventilation and perfusion. EIT-based data and clinical variables related to respiratory and hemodynamic conditions were collected shortly before randomization (0h), and at 12 and 24 hours after randomization. ResultsA total of 40 subjects were included and randomized to the APRV or LTV group (20 per group). During the 24-hour trial period, patients on APRV exhibited significantly increased dorsal ventilation (difference value (24h-0h), median [25-75 percentiles]: 10.82% [2.62–13.74] vs 0.12% [-2.81–4.76], P = .017), decreased dorsal shunt (-4.67% [-6.83–0.59] vs 1.73% [-0.95–5.53], P = .008) and increased dorsal ventilation-perfusion matching (4.13% [-0.26–10.47] vs -3.29% [-5.05–2.81], P = .026) than those on LTV; no difference in ventral dead space was observed between study groups (P = .903). Additionally, two indicators of ventilation distribution heterogeneity: global inhomogeneity index significantly decreased, and center of ventilation significantly increased in the APRV group compared to the LTV group. Patients on APRV had significantly higher PaO2/FiO2, higher respiratory system static compliance (Crs) and lower PaCO2 than those on LTV at 24h. The cardiac output was comparable in both groups. InterpretationAPRV, as compared to LTV, could recruit dorsal region, reduce dorsal shunt, increase dorsal ventilation-perfusion matching, and improve ventilation homogeneity of the lungs, leading to better gas exchange and Crs in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.

Combined Effects of Prone Positioning and Airway Pressure Release Ventilation on Oxygenation in Patients with COVID-19 ARDS.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) support and prone positioning are essential treatments for severe COVID-19 ARDS. We aimed to determine the combined effect of prone position and airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) modes on oxygen improvement in mechanically-ventilated patients with COVID-19. This prospective observational study included 40 eligible patients (13 female, 27 male). Of 40 patients, 23 (57.5%) were ventilated with APRV and 17 (42.5%) were ventilated with controlled modes. A prone position was applied when the PaO2/FiO2 ratio <150 mmHg despite IMV in COVID-19 ARDS. The numbers of patients who completed the first, second, and third prone were 40, 25, and 15, respectively. Incident barotrauma events were diagnosed by both clinical findings and radiological images. After the second prone, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio of the APRV group was higher compared to the PaO2/FiO2 ratio of the control group [189 (150-237)] vs. 127 (100-146) mmHg, respectively, (P=0.025). Similarly, after the third prone, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio of the APRV group was higher compared to the PaO2/FiO2 ratio of the control group [194 (132-263)] vs. 83 (71-136) mmHg, respectively, (P=0.021). Barotrauma events were detected in 13.0% of the patients in the APRV group and 11.8% of the patients in the control group (P=1000). The 28-day mortality was not different in the APRV group than in the control group (73.9% vs. 70.6%, respectively, P=1000). Using the APRV mode during prone positioning improves oxygenation, especially in the second and third prone positions, without increasing the risk of barotrauma. However, no benefit on mortality was detected.

Comparison of airway pressure release ventilation with low tidal volume ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure

Background and aims:Acute respiratory failure (ARF) frequently requires invasive mechanical ventilation. Though low tidal volume ventilation has improved outcome of these patients, mortality is still high. We aimed to assess whether the use of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) results in better oxygenation compared to Low Tidal Volume (LTV) ventilation in patients with ARF.&#x0D; Methods: Patients with ARF requiring mechanical ventilation were randomized into either APRV or LTV ventilation. PaO2 and PaO2/FiO2 ratio were recorded and compared between the groups for the assessment of effect on oxygenation.&#x0D; Results: Two hundred and two patients were included in the study with 101 patients in each group. Baseline oxygenation status, APACHE II scores, and demographic parameters were similar in both the groups. PaO2 values at the time of admission (73.73 ± 22.23 mmHg in APRV group and 75.13 ± 20.43 mmHg in LTV group; p = 0.643), at 24 hours (176.21 ± 50.70 vs 180.62 ± 53.19 mmHg; p = 0.547) and at 72 hours (208.17 ± 61.20 vs 211.36 ± 50.89 mmHg; p = 0.688) were similar between the groups. The mean values of PaO2/FiO2 ratio at 0, 24, and 72 hours were 178.67 ± 55.51 vs 186.09 ± 53.34, 285.87 ± 69.08 vs 290.95 ± 63.56, and 288.95 ± 71.51 vs 283.78 ± 59.13 mmHg respectively in APRV and LTV groups.&#x0D; Conclusion: Both APRV and LTV modes improved oxygenation and had similar effects on oxygenation in patients with ARF.

Effects of airway pressure release ventilation on multi-organ injuries in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome pig models

BackgroundExtra-pulmonary multi-organ failure in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major cause of high mortality. Our purpose is to assess whether airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) causes more multi-organ damage than low tidal volume ventilation (LTV).MethodsTwenty one pigs were randomized into control group (n = 3), ARDS group (n = 3), LTV group (n = 8) and APRV group (n = 7). Severe ARDS model was induced by repeated bronchial saline lavages. Pigs were ventilated and monitored continuously for 48 h. Respiratory data, hemodynamic data, serum inflammatory cytokines were collected throughout the study. Histological injury and apoptosis were assessed by two pathologists.ResultsAfter severe ARDS modeling, pigs in ARDS, LTV and APRV groups experienced significant hypoxemia and reduced lung static compliance (Cstat). Oxygenation recovered progressively after 16 h mechanical ventilation (MV) in LTV and APRV group. The results of the repeated measures ANOVA showed no statistical difference in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio between the APRV and LTV groups (p = 0.54). The Cstat showed a considerable improvement in APRV group with statistical significance (p < 0.01), which was significantly higher than in the LTV group since 16 h (p = 0.04). Histological injury scores showed a significantly lower injury score in the middle and lower lobes of the right lung in the APRV group compared to LTV (pmiddle = 0.04, plower = 0.01), and no significant increase in injury scores for extra-pulmonary organs, including kidney (p = 0.10), small intestine (p = 1.0), liver (p = 0.14, p = 0.13) and heart (p = 0.20). There were no significant differences in serum inflammatory cytokines between the two groups.ConclusionIn conclusion, in the experimental pig models of severe ARDS induced by repetitive saline lavage, APRV improved lung compliance with reduced lung injury of middle and lower lobes, and did not demonstrate more extra-pulmonary organ injuries as compared with LTV.

Airway pressure release ventilation versus pressure-controlled ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

Background Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is defined as ventilation modality with triggered time, limited pressure, and cycled time. In this mode, the pressure altered from a high level applied for a prolonged time to maintain adequate lung volumes and alveolar recruitment, to a low level for a short period of time that allows efficient ventilation and CO2 removal. Patients and methods Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were mechanically ventilated, and then, shifted to either synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation, pressure control (group I) or to APRV (group II). The following parameters were monitored and compared: arterial blood gas measurements, hemodynamic, respiratory mechanics, peak pressure, plateau pressure, mean airway pressure, compliance, minute ventilation, indices of hemodynamic, and tissue perfusion. Results This study involved 60 mechanically ventilated patients. Our study demonstrated no significant difference between both groups regarding demographic data. We found that APRV group have better hemodynamic, better oxygenation, lower need for sedation and vasopressors, higher cardiac index, and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate. ICU scores were comparable in both groups, whereas lung injury score significantly decreased with APRV mode in APRV group. Decreased duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, hospital stay, less complication risk, and less mortality rate were seen with APRV mode. Conclusion The early application of APRV in patients with acute severe hypoxemic respiratory failure was associated with better hemodynamic, better oxygenation, better respiratory mechanics, less sedation use, better perfusion, lower risk of complication, and a shorter duration of ICU stay. Future research should compare APRV strategies to assign the best management approach.

Efficacy of airway pressure release ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

For many years, airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has been used to manage patients with lung conditions such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, it is still unclear whether APRV improves outcomes in critically ill ARDS patients who have been admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). In this study, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were used to compare the efficacy of APRV to traditional modes of mechanical ventilation. RCTs were sourced from PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases (the last dates from August 8, 2019). The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used to assess the risk of bias. The relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were then determined. Article types such as observational studies, case reports, animal studies, etc., were excluded from our meta-analysis. In total, the data of 6 RCTs and 360 ARDS patients were examined. Six studies with 360 patients were included, our meta-analysis showed that the mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the APRV group was higher than that in the traditional mechanical ventilation group (MD =2.35, 95% CI: 1.05-3.64, P=0.0004). The peak pressure (Ppeak) was also lower in the APRV group with a statistical difference noted (MD =-2.04, 95% CI: -3.33 to -0.75, P=0.002). Despite this, no significant beneficial effect on the oxygen index (PaO2/FiO2) was shown between the two groups (MD =26.24, 95% CI: -26.50 to 78.97, P=0.33). Compared with conventional mechanical ventilation, APRV significantly improved 28-day mortality (RR =0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.94, P=0.02). All the included studies were considered to have an unclear risk of bias. We determined that for critically ill patients with ARDS, the application of APRV is associated with an increase in MAP. Inversely, a reduction of the airway Ppeak and 28-day mortality was recorded. There was no sufficient evidence to support the idea that APRV is superior to conventional mechanical ventilation in improving PaO2/FiO2.

Is airway pressure release ventilation, a better primary mode of post-operative ventilation for adult patients undergoing open heart surgery? A prospective randomised study.

Context:Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) induced acute lung injury is accounted for most of the post-operative pulmonary dysfunction which leads to decreased compliance and hypoxemia. Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) as compared to other modes of ventilation has shown to improve gas exchange in Acute lung injury (ALI)/Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) lungs.Aims:We hypothesized APRV as a better primary mode of postoperative ventilation in adult post-cardiac surgery patients.Methodology:The study included 90 postoperative surgical patients, which were randomized into three groups: SIMV-PC(P), APRV(A), and SIMV-VC(V) with 30 patients in each group.Subjects and Methods:Lung compliance and serial arterial blood gas were assessed at regular intervals. PaO2/FiO2 ratio (a measure of oxygenation) and lung compliance were used as an indirect indicator for improvement in lung function. Hemodynamic parameters were closely observed for all the patients.Statistical Analysis Used:Statistical analysis was done using ‘R’ software.Results:There was a statistically significant improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio in the APRV group as compared to other groups. There was also an improvement in lung compliance after 6 h of ventilation and lesser duration of ventilation in the APRV group. However, it was not statistically significant.Conclusions:Our study suggests that APRV can be a useful alternative primary mode of ventilation to improve lung compliance and oxygenation in adult post-cardiac surgical patients.

Airway Pressure Release Ventilation Mode Improves Circulatory and Respiratory Function in Patients After Cardiopulmonary Bypass, a Randomized Trial.

ImportancePostoperative pulmonary complications and cardiovascular complications are major causes of morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization in cardiac surgery patients.ObjectivesTo investigate the effects of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) on respiration and hemodynamics in post cardiac surgery patients.Main Outcomes and MeasuresA single-center randomized control trial was performed. In total, 138 patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass were prospectively screened. Ultimately 39 patients met the inclusion criteria and were randomized into two groups: 19 patients were managed with pressure control ventilation (PCV) and 20 patients were managed with APRV. Respiratory mechanics after 4 h, hemodynamics within the first day, and Chest radiograph score (CRS) and blood gasses within the first three days were recorded and compared.ResultsA higher cardiac index (3.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.8 ± 0.8 L⋅min–1⋅m2; p < 0.05), and shock volume index (35.4 ± 9.2 vs. 33.1 ± 9.7 ml m–2; p < 0.05) were also observed in the APRV group after 4 h as well as within the first day (p < 0.05). Compared to the PCV group, the PaO2/FiO2 was significantly higher after 4 h in patients of APRV group (340 ± 97 vs. 301 ± 82, p < 0.05) and within the first three days (p < 0.05) in the APRV group. CRS revealed less overall lung injury in the APRV group (p < 0.001). The duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay were not significantly (p = 0.248 and 0.424, respectively).Conclusions and RelevanceCompared to PCV, APRV may be associated with increased cardiac output improved oxygenation, and decreased lung injury in postoperative cardiac surgery patients.

The efficacy of airway pressure release ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome adult patients: A meta-analysis of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND:To recruit poorly ventilated lung areas by providing active and adequate oxygenation is a core aspect of treating patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) mode is increasingly accepted as a means of supporting patients with ARDS. This study aimed to determine whether the APRV mode is effective in improving oxygenation, compared to conventional ventilation, in adult ARDS patients.METHODS:We conducted the study according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched for clinical trials in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until April 2019. We included all studies comparing APRV and other conventional mechanical ventilation modes for adult ARDS patients. Our primary outcome was oxygenation status (defined as the day 3 PaO2/FiO2 ratio). The secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. Sensitivity analyses were performed including studies with conventional low-tidal volume ventilation as a comparator ventilation strategy.RESULTS:We included six clinical trials enrolling a total of 375 patients. The day 3 PaO2/FiO2 was reported in all the studies, and it was significantly higher in patients receiving APRV (mean difference [MD] 51.9 mmHg, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 8.2–95.5, P = 0.02, I2= 92%). There was no significant difference in mortality between APRV and the other conventional ventilator modes (risk difference 0.07, 95% CI: −0.01–0.15, P = 0.08, I20%). The point estimate for the effect of APRV on the LOS in ICU indicated a significant reduction in the ICU LOS for the APRV group compared to the counter group (MD 3.1 days, 95% CI 0.4–5.9, P = 0.02, I2= 53%).CONCLUSION:In this study, using the APRV mode may improve oxygenation on day 3 and contribute to reducing the LOS in ICU. However, it is difficult to draw a clinical message about APRV, and well-designed clinical trials are required to investigate this issue.

Management of primary blast lung injury: a comparison of airway pressure release versus low tidal volume ventilation

BackgroundPrimary blast lung injury (PBLI) presents as a syndrome of respiratory distress and haemoptysis resulting from explosive shock wave exposure and is a frequent cause of mortality and morbidity in both military conflicts and terrorist attacks. The optimal mode of mechanical ventilation for managing PBLI is not currently known, and clinical trials in humans are impossible due to the sporadic and violent nature of the disease.MethodsA high-fidelity multi-organ computational simulator of PBLI pathophysiology was configured to replicate data from 14 PBLI casualties from the conflict in Afghanistan. Adaptive and responsive ventilatory protocols implementing low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation and airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) were applied to each simulated patient for 24 h, allowing direct quantitative comparison of their effects on gas exchange, ventilatory parameters, haemodynamics, extravascular lung water and indices of ventilator-induced lung injury.ResultsThe simulated patients responded well to both ventilation strategies. Post 24-h investigation period, the APRV arm had similar PF ratios (137 mmHg vs 157 mmHg), lower sub-injury threshold levels of mechanical power (11.9 J/min vs 20.7 J/min) and lower levels of extravascular lung water (501 ml vs 600 ml) compared to conventional LTV. Driving pressure was higher in the APRV group (11.9 cmH2O vs 8.6 cmH2O), but still significantly less than levels associated with increased mortality.ConclusionsAppropriate use of APRV may offer casualties with PBLI important mortality-related benefits and should be considered for management of this challenging patient group.

The safety and efficacy of airway pressure release ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background:The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a critical illness with high mortality and a worse prognosis. Mechanical ventilation (MV) is currently considered to be one of the most effective methods of treating ARDS. In this meta-analysis, we discussed the efficacy of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) in treating ARDS.Methods:Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), Ovid Medline, Embase, and PubMed were systematically searched with the keywords of “ARDS” and “APRV”. The studies containing the treatment of APRV in ARDS were included. According to the MV protocol used in the studies, the comparison was undertaken between the APRV group vs low tidal volume (LTV) group and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) group. The relative risk (RR) and the standard mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for the comparison between groups.Results:Fourteen studies with 2096 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The average increasing rate of PaO2/FiO2 was 75.4% in the APRV group vs 44.1% in the non-APRV group. No significant differences were found in mortality and duration of ICU stay between APRV vs LTV (P = .073 and P = .404) and APRV vs SIMV (P = .370 and P = .894).Conclusion:The APRV protocol would have a higher increase in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, which was a safe protocol with a compatible effect comparing to LTV and SIMV.

Airway pressure release ventilation in comparison to synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in acute respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial

Background The main goal of mechanical ventilation is to support the respiratory drive safely and optimally. The authors are always transitioning through modes of mechanical ventilation either traditional or novel modes, trying to find out the optimum for each ventilation purpose. Recently, airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has been digging through causes of respiratory failure, as a promising and challenging mode with interesting achievements throughout the clinical trials and case reports. Specially in critically ill patients with severe respiratory failure by means of offering a protective lung strategy throughout, recruiting it safely with better outcomes. Thoroughly, the authors aimed from this study to explore the hidden potentials of APRV mode as a safe recruiting mode could improve the gas exchange by increasing the surface area and maintain the opened alveoli for a while to get rid of inflammatory edema in comparison to the default ventilation mode in any type of respiratory failure. Patients and methods Single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial, which included 152 pediatric patients (56 men and 96 women) in an age range of 8 months to 17 years, who were admitted to the intensive care units either in Pediatrics, Chest Diseases, Anesthesia, or Internal Medicine Departments, Zagazig University Hospitals, Egypt, with acute respiratory failure. Of the patients, 76 were assigned to APRV mode and the other 76 patients were assigned to synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation mode during a period from April 2017 to Jun 2019. Follow-up of arterial blood gases, ventilatory parameters, and vital signs were recorded. Primary and secondary outcomes including duration of ventilation, weaning outcome, and rate of mortality were documented. Results No significant difference was found between the APRV group and the synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation group regarding mortality, complications, and weaning outcome. However, there was significant difference between outcomes of the challenging cases labeled acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary edema connected to APRV. Conclusion The APRV mode showed superiority in supporting acute respiratory distress syndrome and pulmonary edema patients, with no higher risk of mortality or complications.

Early application of airway pressure release ventilation may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome

PurposeExperimental animal models of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have shown that the updated airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) methodologies may significantly improve oxygenation, maximize lung recruitment, and attenuate lung injury, without circulatory depression. This led us to hypothesize that early application of APRV in patients with ARDS would allow pulmonary function to recover faster and would reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation as compared with low tidal volume lung protective ventilation (LTV).MethodsA total of 138 patients with ARDS who received mechanical ventilation for <48 h between May 2015 to October 2016 while in the critical care medicine unit (ICU) of the West China Hospital of Sichuan University were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive APRV (n = 71) or LTV (n = 67). The settings for APRV were: high airway pressure (Phigh) set at the last plateau airway pressure (Pplat), not to exceed 30 cmH2O) and low airway pressure ( Plow) set at 5 cmH2O; the release phase (Tlow) setting adjusted to terminate the peak expiratory flow rate to ≥ 50%; release frequency of 10–14 cycles/min. The settings for LTV were: target tidal volume of 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight; Pplat not exceeding 30 cmH2O; positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) guided by the PEEP–FiO2 table according to the ARDSnet protocol. The primary outcome was the number of days without mechanical ventilation from enrollment to day 28. The secondary endpoints included oxygenation, Pplat, respiratory system compliance, and patient outcomes.ResultsCompared with the LTV group, patients in the APRV group had a higher median number of ventilator-free days {19 [interquartile range (IQR) 8–22] vs. 2 (IQR 0–15); P < 0.001}. This finding was independent of the coexisting differences in chronic disease. The APRV group had a shorter stay in the ICU (P = 0.003). The ICU mortality rate was 19.7% in the APRV group versus 34.3% in the LTV group (P = 0.053) and was associated with better oxygenation and respiratory system compliance, lower Pplat, and less sedation requirement during the first week following enrollment (P < 0.05, repeated-measures analysis of variance).ConclusionsCompared with LTV, early application of APRV in patients with ARDS improved oxygenation and respiratory system compliance, decreased Pplat and reduced the duration of both mechanical ventilation and ICU stay.

Experimental study of airway pressure release ventilation in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a ventilator mode which has demonstrated potential benefits in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. We therefore sought to compare relevant pulmonary data and safety outcomes of this mode to the conventional ventilation and sustained inflation. Canines admitted after intravenous injection of oleic acid requiring mechanical ventilation were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=6), namely conventional ventilation group, low tidal volume ventilation with recruitment group (LTV+SI) and APRV group. The changes of oxygenation, ventilation, airway pressure, inflammatory reaction and hemodynamics at the basic state were observed at 0, 1, 2 and 4 h during the experiment. The levels of PaO2/FiO2 in APRV group were higher than LTV+SI group at 2 and 4 h (P<0.05). In APRV group, the PCO2 levels at 1, 2 and 4 h is much lower than LTV+SI group (P<0.05). Outcome variables showed no differences between APRV, LVT+SI and conventional mechanical ventilation for plateau airway pressure (24±1 vs. 29±3 vs. 25±4), mean arterial pressure (92.9±16.5 vs. 85.8±21.4 vs. 88.7±24.4), cardiac index (4.3±1.7 vs. 3.5±1.9 vs. 3.4±2.1), ERO2 (13.4±10.3 vs. 16.1±6.8 vs. 17.6±9.1), lac (2.5±1.7 vs. 3.1±1.6 vs. 3.9±1.9), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α (132±11 vs. 140±6 vs. 195±13) and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9. For canines sustaining acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring mechanical ventilation, APRV can significantly improve oxygenation and keep hemodynamic stability compared with LTV+SI. The results of TNF-α and MMP-9 suggest that APRV could be as protective for ARDS as LTV with recruitment group.

Limiting ventilator-associated lung injury in a preterm porcine neonatal model

PurposePreterm infants are prone to respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), with severe cases requiring mechanical ventilation for support. However, there are no clear guidelines regarding the optimal ventilation strategy. We hypothesized that airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) would mitigate lung injury in a preterm porcine neonatal model. MethodsPreterm piglets were delivered on gestational day 98 (85% of 115day term), instrumented, and randomized to volume guarantee (VG; n=10) with low tidal volumes (5.5cm3kg−1) and PEEP 4cmH2O or APRV (n=10) with initial ventilator settings: PHigh 18cmH2O, PLow 0cmH2O, THigh 1.30s, TLow 0.15s. Ventilator setting changes were made in response to clinical parameters in both groups. Animals were monitored continuously for 24hours. ResultsThe mortality rates between the two groups were not significantly different (p>0.05). The VG group had relatively increased oxygen requirements (FiO2 50%±9%) compared with the APRV group (FiO2 28%±5%; p>0.05) and a decrease in PaO2/FiO2 ratio (VG 162±33mmHg; APRV 251±45mmHg; p<0.05). The compliance of the VG group (0.51±0.07L·cmH2O−1) was significantly less than the APRV group (0.90±0.06L·cmH2O−1; p<0.05). ConclusionThis study demonstrates that APRV improves oxygenation and compliance as compared with VG. This preliminary work suggests further study into the clinical uses of APRV in the neonate is warranted. Level of EvidenceNot Applicable (Basic Science Animal Study)

Effect of setting high APRV guided by expiratory inflection point of pressure-volume curve on oxygen delivery in canine models of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.

In the present study, the effect of setting high airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) pressure guided by an expiratory inflection point of pressure-volume (PV) curve following lung recruitment maneuver (RM) on oxygen delivery (DO2) in canine models of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was examined. Canine models of severe ARDS were established by intravenous injection of oleic acid. After injection of sedative muscle relaxants, a PV curve plotted using the super-syringe technique, and the pressure at lower inflection point (LIP) at the inhale branch and the pressure at the point of maximum curvature (PMC) at the exhale branch were measured. The ventilation mode was biphasic positive airway pressure (BiPAP), an inspiration to expiration ratio of 1:2, and Phigh 40 cm H2O, Plow 25 cm H2O. Phigh was decreased to 30 cm H2O after 90 sec. The dogs were randomized into 3 groups after RM, i.e., Blip group, BiPAP Plow = LIP+2 cm H2O; Bpmc group, BiPAP Plow = PMC; and Apmc group. In the APRV group, Phigh was set as PMC, with an inspiratory duration of 4 sec and expiratory duration of 0.4 sec. PMC was 18±1.4 cm H2O, and LIP was 11±1.3 cm H2O. Thirty seconds after RM was stabilized, it was set as 0 h. Hemodynamics, oxygenation and DO2 were measured at 0, 1, 2 and 4 h after RM in ARDS dogs. The results demonstrated: i) cardiac index (CI) in the 3 groups, where CI was significantly decreased in the Bpmc group at 0, 1, 2 and 4 h after RM compared to prior to RM (P<0.05) as well as in the Blip and Apmc groups (P<0.05). CI in the Blip and Apmc groups was not significantly altered prior to and after RM. ii) Oxygenation at 0, 1, 2 and 4 h in the 3 groups was improved after RM and the oxygenation indices for the 3 groups at 1 and 2 h were not significantly different (P>0.05). However, the oxygenation index in the Blip group at 4 h was significantly lower than those at 0 h for the Apmc and Bpmc groups (P<0.05). Oxygenation for the Apmc group at 4 h was higher than that for the Blip and Bpmc groups (P<0.05). Oxygenation for the Bpmc group was lower than that at 0 h, although the difference was not significant (P>0.05). iii) DO2 in at 0, 1, 2 and 4 h in the Bpmc group was significantly lower than that in the Blip and Apmc groups, and not significantly improved after RM. DO2 in the Blip and Apmc groups after RM was improved as compard to that before RM and that in the Bpmc group. However, DO2 at 4 h in the Blip group was significantly lower than that at 0 h and in the Apmc group (P<0.05). DO2 at 4 h in the Apmc group was higher than that at 0 h and that in the remaining 2 groups (P<0.05). In conclusion, high APRV pressure guided at PMC of PV curve after RM significantly improved DO2 in ARDS dogs.

The clinical effect of airway pressure release ventilation for acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome

To evaluate the effect of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS), to evaluate the extent of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), and to explore its possible mechanism. A prospective study was conducted in the Department of Critical Care Medicine of the First Hospital of Hebei Medical University from December 2010 to February 2012. The patients with ALI/ARDS were enrolled. They were randomly divided into two groups. The patients in APRV group were given APRV pattern, while those in control group were given lung protection ventilation, synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure (SIMV+PEEP). All patients were treated with AVEA ventilator. The parameters such as airway peak pressure (Ppeak), mean airway pressure (Pmean), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), central venous pressure (CVP), arterial blood gas, urine output (UO), the usage of sedation and muscle relaxation drugs were recorded. AVEA ventilator "turning point (Pflex) operation" was used to describe the quasi-static pressure volume curve (P-V curve). High and low inflection point (UIP, LIP) and triangular Pflex volume (Vdelta) were automatically measured and calculated. The ventilation parameters were set, and the 24-hour P-V curve was recorded again in order to be compared with subsequent results. Venous blood was collected before treatment, 24 hours and 48 hours after ventilation to measure lung surfactant protein D (SP-D) and large molecular mucus in saliva (KL-6) by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the correlation between the above two parameters and prognosis on 28 days was analyzed by multinomial logistic regression. Twenty-six patients with ALI/ARDS were enrolled, and 22 of them completed the test with 10 in APRV group and 12 in control group. The basic parameters and P-V curves between two groups were similar before the test. After 24 hours and 48 hours, mechanical ventilation was given in both groups. The patients' oxygenation was improved significantly, though there were no significant changes in hemodynamic parameters. The Pmean (cmH2O, 1 cmH2O = 0.098 kPa) in APRV group was significantly higher than that in control group (24 hours: 24.20±4.59 vs. 17.50±3.48, P < 0.01; 48 hours: 18.10±4.30 vs. 15.00±2.59, P < 0.05). After ventilation for 24 hours, the ratio of patients with increased Vdelta in APRV group was higher than that in control group (90% vs. 75%), but without statistical difference (P > 0.05). The SP-D level (μg/L) in serum in APRV group showed a tendency of increase (increased from 19.70±7.34 to 27.61±10.21, P < 0.05), in contrast there was a tendency of decrease in control group (decreased from 21.83±7.31 to 16.58±2.90, P > 0.05), the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). After 48-hour ventilation, SP-D in APRV group was decreased, but no change was found in control group, and no significant difference was found as compared with that of the control group (16.45±8.17 vs. 17.20±4.59, P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in serum KL-6 between the two groups before and after ventilation. The SP-D and KL-6 levels in serum were unrelated with 28-day survival rate of the patients. The odds ratio (OR) of SP-D were 0.900 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 0.719-1.125], 1.054 (95%CI = 0.878-1.266), 1.143 (95%CI = 0.957-1.365), and the OR of KL-6 were 1.356 (95%CI = 0.668-2.754), 0.658 (95%CI = 0.161-2.685), 0.915 (95%CI = 0.350-2.394) before the test, 24 hours and 48 hours after ventilation (all P > 0.05). APRV was similar to lung protective ventilation strategy in oxygenation and improvements in the lung mechanics parameters. APRV with a higher Pmean can recruit alveolar more effectively, and it had no impact on hemo-dynamics, but might exacerbate VILI.

Effect of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation on Dynamic Alveolar Heterogeneity

Ventilator-induced lung injury may arise from heterogeneous lung microanatomy, whereby some alveoli remain collapsed throughout the breath cycle while their more compliant or surfactant-replete neighbors become overdistended, and this is called dynamic alveolar heterogeneity. To determine how dynamic alveolar heterogeneity is influenced by 2 modes of mechanical ventilation: low tidal-volume ventilation (LTVV) and airway pressure release ventilation (APRV), using in vivo microscopy to directly measure alveolar size distributions. In a randomized, nonblinded laboratory animal study conducted between January 2013 and December 2014, 14 rats (450-500 g in size) were randomized to a control group with uninjured lungs (n = 4) and 2 experimental groups with surfactant deactivation induced by polysorbate lavage: the LTVV group (n = 5) and the APRV group (n = 5). For all groups, a thoracotomy and in vivo microscopy were performed. Following lung injury induced by polysorbate lavage, the LTVV group was ventilated with a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg and progressively higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (5, 10, 16, 20, and 24 cm H2O). Following lung injury induced by polysorbate lavage, the APRV group was ventilated with a progressively shorter time at low pressure, which increased the ratio of the end-expiratory flow rate (EEFR) to the peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR; from 10% to 25% to 50% to 75%). Alveolar areas were quantified (using PEEP and EEFR to PEFR ratio) to determine dynamic heterogeneity. Following lung injury induced by polysorbate lavage, a higher PEEP (20-24 cm H2O) with LTVV resulted in alveolar occupancy (reported as percentage of total frame area) at inspiration (39.9%-42.2%) and expiration (35.9%-38.7%) similar to that in the control group (inspiration 53.3%; expiration 50.3%; P > .01). Likewise, APRV with an increased EEFR to PEFR ratio (50%-75%) resulted in alveolar occupancy at inspiration (46.7%-47.9%) and expiration (40.2%-46.6%) similar to that in the control group (P > .01). At inspiration, the distribution of the alveolar area of the control group was similar to that of the APRV group (P > .01) (but not to that of the LTVV group [P < .01]). A lower PEEP (5-10 cm H2O) and a decreased EEFR to PEFR ratio (≤50%) demonstrated dynamic heterogeneity between inspiration and expiration (P < .01 for both) with a greater percentage of large alveoli at expiration. Dynamic alveolar homogeneity between inspiration and expiration occurred with higher PEEP (16-24 cm H2O) (P > .01) and an increased EEFR to PEFR ratio (75%) (P > .01). Increasing PEEP during LTVV increased alveolar recruitment and dynamic homogeneity but had a significantly different alveolar size distribution compared with the control group. By comparison, reducing the time at low pressure (EEFR to PEFR ratio of 75%) in the APRV group provided dynamic homogeneity and a closer approximation of the dynamics observed in the control group.

The effects of airway pressure release ventilation on respiratory mechanics in extrapulmonary lung injury.

BackgroundLung injury is often studied without consideration for pathologic changes in the chest wall. In order to reduce the incidence of lung injury using preemptive mechanical ventilation, it is important to recognize the influence of altered chest wall mechanics on disease pathogenesis. In this study, we hypothesize that airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) may be able to reduce the chest wall elastance associated with an extrapulmonary lung injury model as compared with low tidal volume (LVt) ventilation.MethodsFemale Yorkshire pigs were anesthetized and instrumented. Fecal peritonitis was established, and the superior mesenteric artery was clamped for 30 min to induce an ischemia/reperfusion injury. Immediately following injury, pigs were randomized into (1) LVt (n = 3), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 5 cmH2O, Vt 6 cc kg−1, FiO2 21 %, and guided by the ARDSnet protocol or (2) APRV (n = 3), PHigh 16–22 cmH2O, PLow 0 cmH2O, THigh 4.5 s, TLow set to terminate the peak expiratory flow at 75 %, and FiO2 21 %. Pigs were monitored continuously for 48 h. Lung samples and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid were collected at necropsy.ResultsLVt resulted in mild acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (PaO2/FiO2 = 226.2 ± 17.1 mmHg) whereas APRV prevented ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 = 465.7 ± 66.5 mmHg; p < 0.05). LVt had a reduced surfactant protein A concentration and increased histologic injury as compared with APRV. The plateau pressure in APRV (34.3 ± 0.9 cmH2O) was significantly greater than LVt (22.2 ± 2.0 cmH2O; p < 0.05) yet transpulmonary pressure between groups was similar (p > 0.05). This was because the pleural pressure was significantly lower in LVt (7.6 ± 0.5 cmH2O) as compared with APRV (17.4 ± 3.5 cmH2O; p < 0.05). Finally, the elastance of the lung, chest wall, and respiratory system were all significantly greater in LVt as compared with APRV (all p < 0.05).ConclusionsAPRV preserved surfactant and lung architecture and maintenance of oxygenation. Despite the greater plateau pressure and tidal volumes in the APRV group, the transpulmonary pressure was similar to that of LVt. Thus, the majority of the plateau pressure in the APRV group was distributed as pleural pressure in this extrapulmonary lung injury model. APRV maintained a normal lung elastance and an open, homogeneously ventilated lung without increasing lung stress.

Lung protective ventilation (ARDSNet) versus airway pressure release ventilation: ventilatory management in a combined model of acute lung and brain injury.

Concomitant lung/brain traumatic injury results in significant morbidity and mortality. Lung protective ventilation (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network [ARDSNet]) has become the standard for managing adult respiratory distress syndrome; however, the resulting permissive hypercapnea may compound traumatic brain injury. Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) offers an alternative strategy for the management of this patient population. APRV was hypothesized to retard the progression of acute lung/brain injury to a degree greater than ARDSNet in a swine model. Yorkshire swine were randomized to ARDSNet, APRV, or sham. Ventilatory settings and pulmonary parameters, vitals, blood gases, quantitative histopathology, and cerebral microdialysis were compared between groups using χ2, Fisher's exact, Student's t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and mixed-effects repeated-measures modeling. Twenty-two swine (17 male, 5 female), weighing a mean (SD) of 25 (6.0) kg, were randomized to APRV (n = 9), ARDSNet (n = 12), or sham (n = 1). PaO2/FIO2 ratio dropped significantly, while intracranial pressure increased significantly for all three groups immediately following lung and brain injury. Over time, peak inspiratory pressure, mean airway pressure, and PaO2/FIO2 ratio significantly increased, while total respiratory rate significantly decreased within the APRV group compared with the ARDSNet group. Histopathology did not show significant differences between groups in overall brain or lung tissue injury; however, cerebral microdialysis trends suggested increased ischemia within the APRV group compared with ARDSNet over time. Previous studies have not evaluated the effects of APRV in this population. While our macroscopic parameters and histopathology did not observe a significant difference between groups, microdialysis data suggest a trend toward increased cerebral ischemia associated with APRV over time. Additional and future studies should focus on extending the time interval for observation to further delineate differences between groups.