Cargando…

Patient–ventilator asynchrony during conventional mechanical ventilation in children

BACKGROUND: We aimed (1) to describe the characteristics of patient–ventilator asynchrony in a population of critically ill children, (2) to describe the risk factors associated with patient–ventilator asynchrony, and (3) to evaluate the association between patient–ventilator asynchrony and ventilat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mortamet, Guillaume, Larouche, Alexandrine, Ducharme-Crevier, Laurence, Fléchelles, Olivier, Constantin, Gabrielle, Essouri, Sandrine, Pellerin-Leblanc, Amélie-Ann, Beck, Jennifer, Sinderby, Christer, Jouvet, Philippe, Emeriaud, Guillaume
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5738329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29264742
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-017-0344-8
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: We aimed (1) to describe the characteristics of patient–ventilator asynchrony in a population of critically ill children, (2) to describe the risk factors associated with patient–ventilator asynchrony, and (3) to evaluate the association between patient–ventilator asynchrony and ventilator-free days at day 28. METHODS: In this single-center prospective study, consecutive children admitted to the PICU and mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h were included. Patient–ventilator asynchrony was analyzed by comparing the ventilator pressure curve and the electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) signal with (1) a manual analysis and (2) using a standardized fully automated method. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients (median age 6 months) were included in the analysis. Eighteen patients had a very low ventilatory drive (i.e., peak Edi < 2 µV on average), which prevented the calculation of patient–ventilator asynchrony. Children spent 27% (interquartile 22–39%) of the time in conflict with the ventilator. Cycling-off errors and trigger delays contributed to most of this asynchronous time. The automatic algorithm provided a NeuroSync index of 45%, confirming the high prevalence of asynchrony. No association between the severity of asynchrony and ventilator-free days at day 28 or any other clinical secondary outcomes was observed, but the proportion of children with good synchrony was very low. CONCLUSION: Patient–ventilator interaction is poor in children supported by conventional ventilation, with a high frequency of depressed ventilatory drive and a large proportion of time spent in asynchrony. The clinical benefit of strategies to improve patient–ventilator interactions should be evaluated in pediatric critical care.