Cargando…
Accuracy of calculating mechanical power of ventilation by one commonly used equation
Gattinoni’s equation, [Formula: see text] , now commonly used to calculate the mechanical power (MP) of ventilation. However, it calculates only inspiratory MP. In addition, the inclusion of PEEP in Gattinoni’s equation raises debate because PEEP does not produce net displacement or contribute to MP...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9637605/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35426575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-022-00823-3 |
_version_ | 1784825223628980224 |
---|---|
author | Wu, Shin-Hwar Kor, Chew-Teng Mao, I.-Chieh Chiu, Chun-Ching Lin, Kai-Huang Kuo, Cheng-Deng |
author_facet | Wu, Shin-Hwar Kor, Chew-Teng Mao, I.-Chieh Chiu, Chun-Ching Lin, Kai-Huang Kuo, Cheng-Deng |
author_sort | Wu, Shin-Hwar |
collection | PubMed |
description | Gattinoni’s equation, [Formula: see text] , now commonly used to calculate the mechanical power (MP) of ventilation. However, it calculates only inspiratory MP. In addition, the inclusion of PEEP in Gattinoni’s equation raises debate because PEEP does not produce net displacement or contribute to MP. Measuring the area within the pressure–volume loop accurately reflects the MP received in a whole ventilation cycle and the MP thus obtained is not influenced by PEEP. The MP of 25 invasively ventilated patients were calculated by Gattinoni’s equation and measured by integration of the areas within the pressure–volume loops of the ventilation cycles. The MP obtained from both methods were compared. The effects of PEEPs on MP were also evaluated. We found that the MP obtained from both methods were correlated by R(2) = 0.75 and 0.66 at PEEP 5 and 10 cmH(2)O, respectively. The biases of the two methods were 3.13 (2.03 to 4.23) J/min (P < 0.0001) and − 1.23 (− 2.22 to − 0.24) J/min (P = 0.02) at PEEP 5 and 10 cmH(2)O, respectively. These P values suggested that both methods were significantly incongruent. When the tidal volume used was 6 ml/Kg, the MP by Gattinoni’s equation at PEEP 5 and 10 cmH(2)O were significantly different (4.51 vs 7.21 J/min, P < 0.001), but the MP by PV loop area was not influenced by PEEPs (6.46 vs 6.47 J/min, P = 0.331). Similar results were observed across all tidal volumes. We conclude that the Gattinoni’s equation is not accurate in calculating the MP of a whole ventilatory cycle and is significantly influenced by PEEP, which theoretically does not contribute to MP. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10877-022-00823-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9637605 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Netherlands |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96376052022-11-08 Accuracy of calculating mechanical power of ventilation by one commonly used equation Wu, Shin-Hwar Kor, Chew-Teng Mao, I.-Chieh Chiu, Chun-Ching Lin, Kai-Huang Kuo, Cheng-Deng J Clin Monit Comput Original Research Gattinoni’s equation, [Formula: see text] , now commonly used to calculate the mechanical power (MP) of ventilation. However, it calculates only inspiratory MP. In addition, the inclusion of PEEP in Gattinoni’s equation raises debate because PEEP does not produce net displacement or contribute to MP. Measuring the area within the pressure–volume loop accurately reflects the MP received in a whole ventilation cycle and the MP thus obtained is not influenced by PEEP. The MP of 25 invasively ventilated patients were calculated by Gattinoni’s equation and measured by integration of the areas within the pressure–volume loops of the ventilation cycles. The MP obtained from both methods were compared. The effects of PEEPs on MP were also evaluated. We found that the MP obtained from both methods were correlated by R(2) = 0.75 and 0.66 at PEEP 5 and 10 cmH(2)O, respectively. The biases of the two methods were 3.13 (2.03 to 4.23) J/min (P < 0.0001) and − 1.23 (− 2.22 to − 0.24) J/min (P = 0.02) at PEEP 5 and 10 cmH(2)O, respectively. These P values suggested that both methods were significantly incongruent. When the tidal volume used was 6 ml/Kg, the MP by Gattinoni’s equation at PEEP 5 and 10 cmH(2)O were significantly different (4.51 vs 7.21 J/min, P < 0.001), but the MP by PV loop area was not influenced by PEEPs (6.46 vs 6.47 J/min, P = 0.331). Similar results were observed across all tidal volumes. We conclude that the Gattinoni’s equation is not accurate in calculating the MP of a whole ventilatory cycle and is significantly influenced by PEEP, which theoretically does not contribute to MP. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10877-022-00823-3. Springer Netherlands 2022-04-15 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9637605/ /pubmed/35426575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-022-00823-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Wu, Shin-Hwar Kor, Chew-Teng Mao, I.-Chieh Chiu, Chun-Ching Lin, Kai-Huang Kuo, Cheng-Deng Accuracy of calculating mechanical power of ventilation by one commonly used equation |
title | Accuracy of calculating mechanical power of ventilation by one commonly used equation |
title_full | Accuracy of calculating mechanical power of ventilation by one commonly used equation |
title_fullStr | Accuracy of calculating mechanical power of ventilation by one commonly used equation |
title_full_unstemmed | Accuracy of calculating mechanical power of ventilation by one commonly used equation |
title_short | Accuracy of calculating mechanical power of ventilation by one commonly used equation |
title_sort | accuracy of calculating mechanical power of ventilation by one commonly used equation |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9637605/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35426575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-022-00823-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wushinhwar accuracyofcalculatingmechanicalpowerofventilationbyonecommonlyusedequation AT korchewteng accuracyofcalculatingmechanicalpowerofventilationbyonecommonlyusedequation AT maoichieh accuracyofcalculatingmechanicalpowerofventilationbyonecommonlyusedequation AT chiuchunching accuracyofcalculatingmechanicalpowerofventilationbyonecommonlyusedequation AT linkaihuang accuracyofcalculatingmechanicalpowerofventilationbyonecommonlyusedequation AT kuochengdeng accuracyofcalculatingmechanicalpowerofventilationbyonecommonlyusedequation |