DISCUSSION: This review presents the significant clinical aspects and variables of ventilation management, the potential risks associated with suboptimal ventilation management, and a review of the major recent attempts to improve ventilation in the context of these variables. The unique aspect of this review is a focus on these key elements relevant to engineering new approaches. In particular, the need for ventilation strategies which consider, and directly account for, the significant differences in patient condition, disease etiology, and progression within patients is demonstrated with the subsequent requirement for optimal ventilation strategies to titrate for patient- and time-specific conditions.

METHODS: Ten mechanically ventilated ARDS patients from the Christchurch Hospital Intensive Care Unit were included in this study. Each patient underwent a stepwise PEEP recruitment manoeuvre. Airway pressure and flow data were recorded using a pneumotachometer. Patient-specific respiratory elastance (Ers ) and dynamic functional residual capacity (dFRC) at each PEEP level were calculated and compared. Optimal PEEP for each patient was identified by finding the minima of the PEEP-Ers profile.

RESULTS: Median Ers and dFRC over all patients and PEEP values were 32.2 cmH2O/l [interquartile range (IQR) 25.0-45.9] and 0.42 l [IQR 0.11-0.87]. These wide ranges reflect patient heterogeneity and variable response to PEEP. The level of PEEP associated with minimum Ers corresponds to a high change of functional residual capacity, representing the balance between recruitment and minimizing the risk of overdistension.

CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring patient-specific Ers can provide clinical insight to patient-specific condition and response to PEEP settings. The level of PEEP associated with minimum-Ers can be identified for each patient using a stepwise PEEP recruitment manoeuvre. This 'minimum elastance PEEP' may represent a patient-specific optimal setting during mechanical ventilation.

METHODS: Data from 275 breaths aggregated from all mechanically ventilated patients at Christchurch Hospital were used in this study. The breath specific respiratory elastance is calculated using a time-varying elastance model. A pressure reconstruction method is proposed to reconstruct pressure waves identified as being affected by SB effort. The area under the curve of the time-varying respiratory elastance (AUC Edrs) are calculated and compared, where unreconstructed waves yield lower AUC Edrs. The difference between the reconstructed and unreconstructed pressure is denoted as a surrogate measure of SB effort.

RESULTS: The pressure reconstruction method yielded a median AUC Edrs of 19.21 [IQR: 16.30-22.47]cmH2Os/l. In contrast, the median AUC Edrs for unreconstructed M-wave data was 20.41 [IQR: 16.68-22.81]cmH2Os/l. The pressure reconstruction method had the least variability in AUC Edrs assessed by the robust coefficient of variation (RCV)=0.04 versus 0.05 for unreconstructed data. Each patient exhibited different levels of SB effort, independent from MV setting, indicating the need for non-invasive, real time assessment of SB effort.