Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Intensive Care Medicine
Published in: Intensive Care Medicine 9/2009

01-09-2009 | Brief Report

Is proportional-assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors a user-friendly mode?

Authors: Nectaria Xirouchaki, Eumorfia Kondili, Maria Klimathianaki, Dimitris Georgopoulos

Published in: Intensive Care Medicine | Issue 9/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the number of interventions (ventilator settings and sedatives, analgesics and vasoactive medication dose manipulations) between critically ill patients on proportional-assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+) and those on pressure support (PS).

Design

Retrospective analysis of data from a previous randomized clinical trial.

Methods

A total of 208 patients who were mechanically ventilated on controlled modes and met criteria for assisted breathing were randomized to receive either PS (n = 100) or PAV+ (n = 108). Changes in ventilator settings and in the dose of sedatives, analgesics, and vasoactive medications were identified during the period in which the patients were ventilated either with PS (30.4 ± 17.4 h) or PAV+ (30.0 ± 18.1 h) and classified as changes to facilitate weaning (CFW) or changes to respond to deterioration (CD).

Results

The mean number of changes in ventilator settings was significantly higher with PS than that with PAV+ (10.7 ± 5.7 vs. 8.9 ± 4.6). With PS the proportion of these changes classified as CFW was significantly lower than that with PAV+ (59.8% vs. 69.2%). Dyssynchrony as a cause of CD was more likely to occur with PS than with PAV+ (42 vs. 3%). The mean number of changes in the dose of sedatives, analgesics, and vasoactive medications was higher with PS than with PAV+, the difference being significant only for sedatives (4.06 ± 3.8 vs. 2.82 ± 3.4).

Conclusions

Compared to PS, PAV+ is associated with fewer intervention in terms of ventilator settings and sedative dose changes.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Younes M (1992) Proportional assist ventilation, a new approach to ventilatory support: theory. Am Rev Respir Dis 145:114–120PubMed
2.
Kondili E, Prinianakis G, Alexopoulou C, Vakouti E, Klimathianaki M, Georgopoulos D (2006) Respiratory load compensation during mechanical ventilation—proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors versus pressure support. Intensive Care Med 32:692–699PubMedCrossRef
3.
Younes M, Kun J, Masiowski B, Webster K, Roberts D (2001) A method for noninvasive determination of inspiratory resistance during proportional assist ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 163:829–839PubMed
4.
Younes M, Webster K, Kun J, Roberts D, Masiowski B (2001) A method for measuring passive elastance during proportional assist ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 164:50–60PubMed
5.
Xirouchaki N, Kondili E, Vaporidi K, Xirouchakis G, Klimathianaki M, Gavriilidis G, Alexandopoulou E, Plataki M, Alexopoulou C, Georgopoulos D (2008) Proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors in critically ill patients: comparison with pressure support. Intensive Care Med 34:2026–2034PubMedCrossRef
6.
Tassaux D, Gainnier M, Battisti A, Jolliet P (2005) Impact of expiratory trigger setting on delayed cycling and inspiratory muscle workload. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 172:1283–1289PubMedCrossRef
7.
Bonmarchand G, Chevron V, Menard JF, Girault C, Moritz-Berthelot F, Pasquis P, Leroy J (1999) Effects of pressure ramp slope values on the work of breathing during pressure support ventilation in restrictive patients. Crit Care Med 27:715–722PubMedCrossRef
8.
Kress JP, Hall JB (2006) Sedation in the mechanically ventilated patient. Crit Care Med 34:2541–2546PubMedCrossRef
9.
Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O’Connor MF, Hall JB (2000) Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med 342:1471–1477PubMedCrossRef
10.
Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, Reinhart K, Angus DC, Brun-Buisson C, Beale R, Calandra T, Dhainaut JF, Gerlach H, Harvey M, Marini JJ, Marshall J, Ranieri M, Ramsay G, Sevransky J, Thompson BT, Townsend S, Vender JS, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL (2008) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Crit Care Med 36:296–327PubMedCrossRef
11.
Thille AW, Cabello B, Galia F, Lyazidi A, Brochard L (2008) Reduction of patient-ventilator asynchrony by reducing tidal volume during pressure-support ventilation. Intensive Care Med 34:1477–1486PubMedCrossRef
12.
Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, Lellouche F, Brochard L (2006) Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 32:1515–1522PubMedCrossRef
13.
Mitrouska J, Xirouchaki N, Patakas D, Siafakas N, Georgopoulos D (1999) Effects of chemical feedback on respiratory motor and ventilatory output during different modes of assisted mechanical ventilation. Eur Respir J 13:873–882PubMedCrossRef
14.
Giannouli E, Webster K, Roberts D, Younes M (1999) Response of ventilator-dependent patients to different levels of pressure support and proportional assist. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 159:1716–1725PubMed
15.
Vignaux L, Vargas F, Roeseler J, Tassaux D, Thille AW, Kossowsky MP, Brochard L, Jolliet P (2009) Patient-ventilator asynchrony during non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: a multicenter study. Intensive Care Med 35:840–846PubMedCrossRef
16.
Bosma K, Ferreyra G, Ambrogio C, Pasero D, Mirabella L, Braghiroli A, Appendini L, Mascia L, Ranieri VM (2007) Patient-ventilator interaction and sleep in mechanically ventilated patients: pressure support versus proportional assist ventilation. Crit Care Med 35:1048–1054PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Is proportional-assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors a user-friendly mode?
Authors
Nectaria Xirouchaki
Eumorfia Kondili
Maria Klimathianaki
Dimitris Georgopoulos
Publication date
01-09-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine / Issue 9/2009
Print ISSN: 0342-4642
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1238
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-009-1524-2

Other articles of this Issue 9/2009

Intensive Care Medicine 9/2009 Go to the issue

Original

Clotting factor replacement and recovery from snake venom-induced consumptive coagulopathy

Pediatric Original

Relationships, trust, decision-making and quality of care in a paediatric intensive care unit

Original

Relationships among haemoglobin level, packed red cell transfusion and clinical outcomes in patients after cardiac surgery

Correspondence

Predictive ability of intra-abdominal pressure for ICU mortality

Original

Circulating angiopoietin-2 levels in the course of septic shock: relation with fluid balance, pulmonary dysfunction and mortality

Correspondence

Does remifentanil shorten ventilator maintenance, midozolam prolong it, or both alter its duration?