2006 OPEN FORUM Abstracts
An Evaluation of Respiratory Rate Change Response Times of a Conventional & Closed Loop Mode of Ventilation in a Simulated Spontaneous Breathing Model.
David A.
Grooms, BS, RRT, Elizabeth Ryland, RRT.
Sentara
Leigh
Hospital
,
Norfolk
,
VA
Background: Manipulation of the ventilator respiratory
rate (RR) control is a common practice of bedside clinicians. The goal of
manipulating RR is to provide patients with acceptable minute volumes to ensure
adequate alveolar ventilation, and minimize patient work of breathing
(WOB). In the event a patient becomes
tachypneic, or demonstrates an increased WOB, practioners will commonly
increase the ventilator RR in an attempt to "capture" or take over the patients
breathing pattern. The purpose of this study was to assess ventilator RR change
response times in a simulated spontaneous breathing model of a conventional
Pressure Control Mode (PC/AC) and a closed loop mode of ventilation, Adaptive
Tidal Volume Support (AVTS).
Methods: A simulated spontaneous
breathing model was utilized using a dual chamber, Double TTL test lung
(Michigan Instruments). One test lung
(driving model) was powered by a Hamilton Galileo Gold ventilator (Hamilton Medical Inc.) using
minimum settings to generate spontaneous breathing of a second test lung
(spontaneous model) connected to another Hamilton Galileo ventilator. The
Pressure Control (PC) mode was used for the driving ventilator, however
settings did differ to simulate different patient scenarios/WOB/P0.1, etc. There
were two stages, consisting of two arms per stage. Stage I driving vent
settings were PC/AC mode, PC of 5cmH2O (set to create low to moderate WOB, P0.1
of -2.8), RR 12bpm, I-time 1.3 seconds, PEEP 5.
Stage II driving vent settings were PC/AC mode, PC of 25cmH2O (set to
create increased WOB, P0.1 -8.2), RR 30 bpm, I-time
0.6 seconds, PEEP 5cmH2O. Each stage
consisted of a direct observation of the first machine initiated breath that
was delivered to the spontaneous model when the RR control was set below, equal
to, and above the simulated spontaneous rate. Time to mandatory breath delivery
without disruption of spontaneous breathing cycle was observed and determined
by stop watch, and by measurement of graphic waveform analysis. Increases to RR control settings were
consistently activated during the beginning of inspiration. This was discovered to optimize breath
delivery in the shortest time frame due to cycle time criteria. Following data collection on each RR
increase, the RR control setting was reset below the spontaneous rate for 2
minutes to allow equilibration between the two models. If there was no delivery of a machine initiated
breath, the observation was limited to less than 3 minutes (180 seconds).
Results: Stage I: RR control settings of 10-20 bpm demonstrated
response times of >3min to 2.9 seconds in PC/AC (Arm I) and >3min to 36
seconds in AVTS (Arm II). Stage II: RR
control settings of 28-36bpm demonstrated response times of >3min to 1.54
seconds in PC/AC (Arm I) and >3min to 20 seconds in AVTS mode (Arm II).
Conclusion: Conventional PC/AC produced faster response
times of mandatory breath type delivery when the RR control setting was
adjusted above the spontaneous breathing rate. There was a significant delay in
mandatory breath type delivery in AVTS. The
response time consistently improved as the mandatory RR control setting was
increased in both modes. An unexpected and significant finding of this study
demonstrated that the initial delivery of mandatory breaths is dependent on
which phase of the time cycle the change is activated. For example, when RR changes above the
spontaneous RR were activated in the beginning phase of inspiration, it
resulted in an increased mandatory breath response time, in contrast to being
initiated in the mid expiration phase.
When activated in mid expiration, the mandatory breath was delayed by
the anticipated spontaneous breath.