METHODS: A stochastic model was developed using respiratory elastance (Ers) data from two clinical cohorts and averaged over 30-minute time intervals. The stochastic model was used to generate future Ers data based on current Ers values with added normally distributed random noise. Self-validation of the VPs was performed via Monte Carlo simulation and retrospective Ers profile fitting. A stochastic VP cohort of temporal Ers evolution was synthesised and then compared to an independent retrospective patient cohort data in a virtual trial across several measured patient responses, where similarity of profiles validates the realism of stochastic model generated VP profiles.
RESULTS: A total of 120,000 3-hour VPs for pressure control (PC) and volume control (VC) ventilation modes are generated using stochastic simulation. Optimisation of the stochastic simulation process yields an ideal noise percentage of 5-10% and simulation iteration of 200,000 iterations, allowing the simulation of a realistic and diverse set of Ers profiles. Results of self-validation show the retrospective Ers profiles were able to be recreated accurately with a mean squared error of only 0.099 [0.009-0.790]% for the PC cohort and 0.051 [0.030-0.126]% for the VC cohort. A virtual trial demonstrates the ability of the stochastic VP cohort to capture Ers trends within and beyond the retrospective patient cohort providing cohort-level validation.
CONCLUSION: VPs capable of temporal evolution demonstrate feasibility for use in designing, developing, and optimising bedside MV guidance protocols through in-silico simulation and validation. Overall, the temporal VPs developed using stochastic simulation alleviate the need for lengthy, resource intensive, high cost clinical trials, while facilitating statistically robust virtual trials, ultimately leading to improved patient care and outcomes in mechanical ventilation.
METHODS: Gaussian effort model (GEM) is a derivative of the single-compartment model with basis function. GEM model uses a linear combination of basis functions to model the nonlinear pressure waveform of spontaneous breathing patients. The GEM model estimates respiratory mechanics such as Elastance and Resistance along with the magnitudes of basis functions, which accounts for patient inspiratory effort.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The GEM model was tested using both simulated data and a retrospective observational clinical trial patient data. GEM model fitting to the original airway pressure waveform is better than any existing models when reverse triggering asynchrony is present. The fitting error of GEM model was less than 10% for both simulated data and clinical trial patient data.
CONCLUSION: GEM can capture the respiratory mechanics in the presence of patient effect in volume control ventilation mode and also can be used to assess patient-ventilator interaction. This model determines basis functions magnitudes, which can be used to simulate any waveform of patient effort pressure for future studies. The estimation of parameter identification GEM model can further be improved by constraining the parameters within a physiologically plausible range during least-square nonlinear regression.