Background: INTELLiVENT-adaptive support ventilation (ASV) is an automated closed-loop mode of invasive ventilation for use in critically ill patients. INTELLiVENT-ASV automatically adjusts, without the intervention of the caregiver, ventilator settings to achieve the lowest work and force of breathing. Aims: The aim of this case series is to describe the specific adjustments of INTELLiVENT-ASV in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, who were intubated for invasive ventilation. Study design: We describe three patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) because of COVID-19 who received invasive ventilation in our intensive care unit (ICU) in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: INTELLiVENT-ASV could be used successfully, but only after certain adjustments in the settings of the ventilator. Specifically, the high oxygen targets that are automatically chosen by INTELLiVENT-ASV when the lung condition ‘ARDS’ is ticked had to be lowered, and the titration ranges for positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) and inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2) had to be narrowed. Conclusions: The challenges taught us how to adjust the ventilator settings so that INTELLiVENT-ASV could be used in successive COVID-19 ARDS patients, and we experienced the benefits of this closed-loop ventilation in clinical practice. Relevance to clinical practice: INTELLiVENT-ASV is attractive to use in clinical practice. It is safe and effective in providing lung-protective ventilation. A closely observing user always remains needed. INTELLiVENT-ASV has a strong potential to reduce the workload associated with ventilation because of the automated adjustments.
DOCUMENT
IntroductionThe driving pressure (ΔP) has an independent association with outcome in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is a closed-loop mode of ventilation that targets the lowest work and force of breathing.AimTo compare transpulmonary and respiratory system ΔP between closed-loop ventilation and conventional pressure controlled ventilation in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.MethodsSingle-center randomized cross-over clinical trial in patients in the early phase of ARDS. Patients were randomly assigned to start with a 4-h period of closed-loop ventilation or conventional ventilation, after which the alternate ventilation mode was selected. The primary outcome was the transpulmonary ΔP; secondary outcomes included respiratory system ΔP, and other key parameters of ventilation.ResultsThirteen patients were included, and all had fully analyzable data sets. Compared to conventional ventilation, with closed-loop ventilation the median transpulmonary ΔP with was lower (7.0 [5.0–10.0] vs. 10.0 [8.0–11.0] cmH2O, mean difference − 2.5 [95% CI − 2.6 to − 2.1] cmH2O; P = 0.0001). Inspiratory transpulmonary pressure and the respiratory rate were also lower. Tidal volume, however, was higher with closed-loop ventilation, but stayed below generally accepted safety cutoffs in the majority of patients.ConclusionsIn this small physiological study, when compared to conventional pressure controlled ventilation INTELLiVENT-ASV reduced the transpulmonary ΔP in patients in the early phase of moderate-to-severe ARDS. This closed-loop ventilation mode also led to a lower inspiratory transpulmonary pressure and a lower respiratory rate, thereby reducing the intensity of ventilation.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03211494, July 7, 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03211494?term=airdrop&draw=2&rank=1.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUNDLung protective ventilation is considered standard of care in the intensive care unit. However, modifying the ventilator settings can be challenging and is time consuming. Closed loop modes of ventilation are increasingly attractive for use in critically ill patients. With closed loop ventilation, settings that are typically managed by the ICU professionals are under control of the ventilator's algorithms.OBJECTIVESTo describe the effectiveness, safety, efficacy and workload with currently available closed loop ventilation modes.DESIGNSystematic review of randomised clinical trials.DATA SOURCESA comprehensive systematic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials search was performed in January 2023.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIARandomised clinical trials that compared closed loop ventilation with conventional ventilation modes and reported on effectiveness, safety, efficacy or workload.RESULTSThe search identified 51 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Closed loop ventilation, when compared with conventional ventilation, demonstrates enhanced management of crucial ventilator variables and parameters essential for lung protection across diverse patient cohorts. Adverse events were seldom reported. Several studies indicate potential improvements in patient outcomes with closed loop ventilation; however, it is worth noting that these studies might have been underpowered to conclusively demonstrate such benefits. Closed loop ventilation resulted in a reduction of various aspects associated with the workload of ICU professionals but there have been no studies that studied workload in sufficient detail.CONCLUSIONSClosed loop ventilation modes are at least as effective in choosing correct ventilator settings as ventilation performed by ICU professionals and have the potential to reduce the workload related to ventilation. Nevertheless, there is a lack of sufficient research to comprehensively assess the overall impact of these modes on patient outcomes, and on the workload of ICU staff.
MULTIFILE
