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.

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: 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%.

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.

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.