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.
CONCLUSION: Engineered, protective lung strategies that can directly account for and manage inter- and intra-patient variability thus offer great potential to improve both individual care, as well as cohort clinical outcomes.
METHODS: The model-based method uses a single-compartment lung model (SCM) to simulate the resultant tidal volume of patient pairs at a set ventilation setting. If both patients meet specified safe ventilation criteria under similar ventilation settings, the actual mechanical ventilator settings for Co-MV are determined via simulation using a double-compartment lung model (DCM). This method allows clinicians to analyse Co-MV in silico, before clinical implementation.
RESULTS: The proposed method demonstrates successful patient matching and MV setting in a model-based simulation as well as good discrimination to avoid mismatched patient pairs. The pairing process is based on model-based, patient-specific respiratory mechanics identified from measured data to provide useful information for guiding care. Specifically, the matching is performed via estimation of MV delivered tidal volume (mL/kg) based on patient-specific respiratory mechanics. This information can provide insights for the clinicians to evaluate the subsequent effects of Co-MV. In addition, it was also found that Co-MV patients with highly restrictive respiratory mechanics and obese patients must be performed with extra care.
CONCLUSION: This approach allows clinicians to analyse patient matching in a virtual environment without patient risk. The approach is tested in simulation, but the results justify the necessary clinical validation in human trials.
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.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12611001179921.
METHODS: An iterative airway pressure reconstruction (IPR) method is used to reconstruct asynchronous airway pressure waveforms to better match passive breathing airway waveforms using a single compartment model. The reconstructed pressure enables estimation of respiratory mechanics of airway pressure waveform essentially free from asynchrony. Reconstruction enables real-time breath-to-breath monitoring and quantification of the magnitude of the asynchrony (MAsyn).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Over 100,000 breathing cycles from MV patients with known asynchronous breathing were analyzed. The IPR was able to reconstruct different types of asynchronous breathing. The resulting respiratory mechanics estimated using pressure reconstruction were more consistent with smaller interquartile range (IQR) compared to respiratory mechanics estimated using asynchronous pressure. Comparing reconstructed pressure with asynchronous pressure waveforms quantifies the magnitude of asynchronous breathing, which has a median value MAsyn for the entire dataset of 3.8%.
CONCLUSION: The iterative pressure reconstruction method is capable of identifying asynchronous breaths and improving respiratory mechanics estimation consistency compared to conventional model-based methods. It provides an opportunity to automate real-time quantification of asynchronous breathing frequency and magnitude that was previously limited to invasively method only.
METHODS: A clinically validated insulin/glucose model was used to calculate SI with the standard fasting assumption (SFA) G0 = GTARGET. Then GTARGET was treated as a variable in a second analysis (VGT). The outcomes were contrasted across twelve participants with established type 2 diabetes mellitus that were recruited to take part in a 24-week dietary intervention. Participants underwent three insulin-modified intravenous glucose tolerance tests (IM-IVGTT) at 0, 12, and 24 weeks.
RESULTS: SIVGT had a median value of 3.36×10-4 L·mU-1·min-1 (IQR: 2.30 - 4.95×10-4) and were significantly lower ( P < .05) than the median SISFA (6.38×10-4 L·mU-1·min-1, IQR: 4.87 - 9.39×10-4). The VGT approach generally yielded lower SI values in line with expected participant physiology and more effectively tracked changes in participant state over the 24-week trial. Calculated GTARGET values were significantly lower than G0 values (median GTARGET = 5.48 vs G0 = 7.16 mmol·L-1 P < .001) and were notably higher in individuals with longer term diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS: Typical modeling approaches can overestimate SI when GTARGET does not equal G0. Hence, calculating GTARGET may enable more precise SI measurements in individuals with type 2 diabetes, and could imply a dysfunction in diabetic metabolism.
METHODS: Two stochastic models (SM2 and SM3) were developed using retrospective patient respiratory elastance (Ers) from two clinical cohorts which were averaged over time intervals of 10 and 30 min respectively. A stochastic model from a previous study (SM1) was used to benchmark performance. The stochastic models were clinically validated on an independent retrospective clinical cohort of 14 patients. Differences in predictive ability were evaluated using the difference in percentile lines and cumulative distribution density (CDD) curves.
RESULTS: Clinical validation shows all three models captured more than 98% (median) of future Ers data within the 5th - 95th percentile range. Comparisons of stochastic model percentile lines reported a maximum mean absolute percentage difference of 5.2%. The absolute differences of CDD curves were less than 0.25 in the ranges of 5
METHODS: Non-linear autoregressive (NARX) model is used to reconstruct missing airway pressure due to the presence of spontaneous breathing effort in mv patients. Then, the incidence of SB patients is estimated. The study uses a total of 10,000 breathing cycles collected from 10 ARDS patients from IIUM Hospital in Kuantan, Malaysia. In this study, there are 2 different ratios of training and validating methods. Firstly, the initial ratio used is 60:40 which indicates 600 breath cycles for training and remaining 400 breath cycles used for testing. Then, the ratio is varied using 70:30 ratio for training and testing data.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The mean residual error between original airway pressure and reconstructed airway pressure is denoted as the magnitude of effort. The median and interquartile range of mean residual error for both ratio are 0.0557 [0.0230 - 0.0874] and 0.0534 [0.0219 - 0.0870] respectively for all patients. The results also show that Patient 2 has the highest percentage of SB incidence and Patient 10 with the lowest percentage of SB incidence which proved that NARX model is able to perform for both higher incidence of SB effort or when there is a lack of SB effort.
CONCLUSION: This model is able to produce the SB incidence rate based on 10% threshold. Hence, the proposed NARX model is potentially useful to estimate and identify patient-specific SB effort, which has the potential to further assist clinical decisions and optimize MV settings.
METHODS: A stochastic model of Ers is integrated into the VENT protocol from previous works to develop the SiVENT protocol, to account for both intra- and inter-patient variability. A cohort of 20 virtual MV patients based on retrospective patient data are used to validate the performance of this method for volume-controlled (VC) ventilation. A performance evaluation was conducted where the SiVENT and VENT protocols were implemented in 1080 instances each to compare the two protocols and evaluate the difference in reduction of possible MV settings achieved by each.
RESULTS: From an initial number of 189,000 possible MV setting combinations, the VENT protocol reduced this number to a median of 10,612, achieving a reduction of 94.4% across the cohort. With the integration of the stochastic model component, the SiVENT protocol reduced this number from 189,000 to a median of 9329, achieving a reduction of 95.1% across the cohort. The SiVENT protocol reduces the number of possible combinations provided to the user by more than 1000 combinations as compared to the VENT protocol.
CONCLUSIONS: Adding a stochastic model component into a model-based approach to selecting MV settings improves the ability of a decision support system to recommend patient-specific MV settings. It specifically considers inter- and intra-patient variability in respiratory elastance and eliminates potentially harmful settings based on clinically recommended pressure thresholds. Clinical input and local protocols can further reduce the number of safe setting combinations. The results for the SiVENT protocol justify further investigation of its prediction accuracy and clinical validation trials.
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.
CONCLUSION: A simple reconstruction method enables more consistent real-time estimation of the true, underlying respiratory system mechanics of a SB patient and provides the surrogate of SB effort, which may be clinically useful for clinicians in determining optimal ventilator settings to improve patient care.
OBJECTIVE: This study analyses the effect of estimating EGP for ICU patients with very low SI (severe insulin resistance) and its impact on identified, model-based insulin sensitivity identification, modeling accuracy, and model-based glycemic clinical control.
METHODS: Using clinical data from 717 STAR patients in 3 independent cohorts (Hungary, New Zealand, and Malaysia), insulin sensitivity, time of insulin resistance, and EGP values are analyzed. A method is presented to estimate EGP in the presence of non-physiologically low SI. Performance is assessed via model accuracy.
RESULTS: Results show 22%-62% of patients experience 1+ episodes of severe insulin resistance, representing 0.87%-9.00% of hours. Episodes primarily occur in the first 24 h, matching clinical expectations. The Malaysian cohort is most affected. In this subset of hours, constant model-based EGP values can bias identified SI and increase blood glucose (BG) fitting error. Using the EGP estimation method presented in these constrained hours significantly reduced BG fitting errors.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients early in ICU stay may have significantly increased EGP. Increasing modeled EGP in model-based glycemic control can improve control accuracy in these hours. The results provide new insight into the frequency and level of significantly increased EGP in critical illness.
METHODS: This study shows the design and development of the "VENT" protocol, which integrates the single compartment linear lung model with clinical recommendations from landmark studies, to aid clinical decision-making in selecting mechanical ventilation settings. Using retrospective breath data from a cohort of 24 patients, 3,566 and 2,447 clinically implemented VC and PC settings were extracted respectively. Using this data, a VENT protocol application case study and clinical comparison is performed, and the prediction accuracy of the VENT protocol is validated against actual measured outcomes of pressure and volume.
RESULTS: The study shows the VENT protocols' potential use in narrowing an overwhelming number of possible mechanical ventilation setting combinations by up to 99.9%. The comparison with retrospective clinical data showed that only 33% and 45% of clinician settings were approved by the VENT protocol. The unapproved settings were mainly due to exceeding clinical recommended settings. When utilising the single compartment model in the VENT protocol for forecasting peak pressures and tidal volumes, median [IQR] prediction error values of 0.75 [0.31 - 1.83] cmH2O and 0.55 [0.19 - 1.20] mL/kg were obtained.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the proposed protocol with retrospective clinically implemented settings shows the protocol can prevent harmful mechanical ventilation setting combinations for which clinicians would be otherwise unaware. The VENT protocol warrants a more detailed clinical study to validate its potential usefulness in a clinical setting.