Bedside calculation of mechanical power during volume- And pressure-controlled mechanical ventilation

83Citations
Citations of this article
168Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Mechanical power (MP) is the energy delivered to the respiratory system over time during mechanical ventilation. Our aim was to compare the currently available methods to calculate MP during volume- and pressure-controlled ventilation, comparing different equations with the geometric reference method, to understand whether the easier to use surrogate formulas were suitable for the everyday clinical practice. This would warrant a more widespread use of mechanical power to promote lung protection. Methods: Forty respiratory failure patients, sedated and paralyzed for clinical reasons, were ventilated in volume-controlled ventilation, at two inspiratory flows (30 and 60 L/min), and pressure-controlled ventilation with a similar tidal volume. Mechanical power was computed both with the geometric method, as the area between the inspiratory limb of the airway pressure and the volume, and with two algebraic methods, a comprehensive and a surrogate formula. Results: The bias between the MP computed by the geometric method and by the comprehensive algebraic method during volume-controlled ventilation was respectively 0.053 (0.77, - 0.81) J/min and - 0.4 (0.70, - 1.50) J/min at low and high flows (r 2 = 0.96 and 0.97, p < 0.01). The MP measured and computed by the two methods were highly correlated (r 2 = 0.95 and 0.94, p < 0.01) with a bias of - 0.0074 (0.91, - 0.93) and - 1.0 (0.45, - 2.52) J/min at high-low flows. During pressure-controlled ventilation, the bias between the MP measured and the one calculated with the comprehensive and simplified methods was correlated (r 2 = 0.81, 0.94, p < 0.01) with mean differences of - 0.001 (2.05, - 2.05) and - 0.81 (2.11, - 0.48) J/min. Conclusions: Both for volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation, the surrogate formulas approximate the reference method well enough to warrant their use in the everyday clinical practice. Given that these formulas require nothing more than the variables already displayed by the intensive care ventilator, a more widespread use of mechanical power should be encouraged to promote lung protection against ventilator-induced lung injury.

References Powered by Scopus

Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome

11088Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries

3903Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome

1884Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Mechanical Power during General Anesthesia and Postoperative Respiratory Failure: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

57Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Associations of dynamic driving pressure and mechanical power with postoperative pulmonary complications–posthoc analysis of two randomised clinical trials in open abdominal surgery

28Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Association of intensity of ventilation with 28-day mortality in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure: insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study

27Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chiumello, D., Gotti, M., Guanziroli, M., Formenti, P., Umbrello, M., Pasticci, I., … Busana, M. (2020). Bedside calculation of mechanical power during volume- And pressure-controlled mechanical ventilation. Critical Care, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03116-w

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 34

49%

Researcher 24

35%

Professor / Associate Prof. 8

12%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 73

80%

Nursing and Health Professions 13

14%

Engineering 3

3%

Arts and Humanities 2

2%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 118

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free