LRF -This slide shows how PAV+ software may improve ventilator synchrony. -The top three boxes represent pressure vs. time for PCV while the bottom three boxes represent the same thing for PAV+ software. -The green line represents the effort input from the patient’s diaphragm and the red line represents the pressure output from the ventilator. -In PCV the ventilator’s output is the same despite changes in the diaphragm’s input. -In PAV+ mode, the machine’s output mirrors the input of the diaphragm. -If the patient pulls a little bit, the vent pushes a little bit. If the patient pulls a lot then the vent pushes a lot.
NAVA Training Presentation 2007 NAVA Training Presentation.ppt The electrical discharge of the diaphragm is captured through the introduction of an Edi Catheter fitted with an electrode array. Since NAVA uses the Edi to control the ventilator, it is important to understand what the signal represents. All muscles (including the diaphragm and other respiratory muscles) generate electrical activity to excite muscle contraction. This electrical excitation is controlled by nerve stimulus and controlled in magnitude by adjusting the stimulation frequency (rate coding) or by adjusting the numbers of nerves that are sending the stimulus (nerve fiber recruitment). Both, the rate coding and nerve fiber recruitment will be transmitted into muscle fiber motor unit action potentials which will be summed both in time and space producing the intensity of the electrical activity measured on the muscle. To reduce the influence of external noise, the measurement of the muscle electrical activity is performed by bipolar differential recordings, where the signal difference between two single electrodes is measured. For example the resting Edi measured with electrodes in the esophagus in a healthy subject typically ranges between a few and 10 μ V. Patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency may demonstrate signals 5-7 times stronger. Due to the differential recording and low signal amplitude, measurement of Edi is sensitive to electrode filtering, external noise, and cross-talk from other muscles e.g. the heart which produces electrical amplitudes of about 10-100 times that of the diaphragm. Since, the Edi must always be present to initiate a contraction of the diaphragm it should always be possible to record the signal in healthy subjects
So: There is less work to do in the ICU Patients have shorter stays in the ICU And there is less need for specialists in the ICU All this means: Low costs: you need fewer resources to do the same job. High patient safety: the closed loop and the quick weaning always enhance safety. [Click: Next slide.]
LRF -Potential benefits as listed by Dr Younes in one of his early papers. M Younes. Proportional Assist Ventilation, A New Approach to Ventilatory Support. Theory. Am Rev Respir Dis 1992;145:114-120.
We’ve used a variety of mechanical ventilation strategies for low lung volume disorders. Ventilation with normal tidal volumes but low PEEP level requires high pressures, and the shear forces created during the inflation- derecruitment- reinflation sequence can cause severe lung injury. Using normal tidal volumes with high PEEP means even higher pressure, and can overdistend relatively healthy lung tissue. In an effort to protect the ARDS lung from further, ventilator- induced injury, some clinicians advocate a so- called “open lung approach” of high PEEP and tidal volumes of 6 mL/ kg of body weight, or less. This may result in high arterial CO2, referred to as “permissive hypercapnia”. Dr. John Luce from UCSF points out, however, that hypercapnia may be unavoidable with this strategy in patients with severe Acute Lung Injury. Really, the only permission given is to ourselves as clinicians, making high CO2 “O.K.”, which makes us feel better. But not the patient. Hypercapnia is uncomfortable, and patients usually require heavy sedation to control their ventilation. A large, prospective, multicenter trial of high versus low tidal volume use in ARDS is currently underway in the U.S.
Peak and Mean airway pressures are reduced Less invasive, less mechanical Weaning is smooth and effortless Less sedation and muscle relaxants Spontaneous breathing contributes to better gas exchange and secretion clearance. Greater comfort and less stress for patients
So, there are only four settings for APRV as seen on this graph of airway pressure and flow : • the high pressure, P- high, the CPAP level to keep the lungs open, • the duration, or time, that the CPAP pressure is held at the airway, called T- high, • the release pressure, P- low, that allows additional CO2 removal, • and the duration, or time, that pressure is released, called T- low. We see flow in and out of the lungs with spontaneous breathing during the time that the higher pressure is applied to the airway. And here we see the larger flow, or exhaled volume, from the lungs during the release. Again, it’s very important that the release time be short so that lung volume is maintained. How can we assess that? Well, I’d love to be able to actually measure FRC at the bedside in the ICU, but that really isn’t practical today. Notice that the expiratory flow tracing during the release doesn’t reach the zero line before the high pressure is re- applied. Because flow is still coming from the lungs, we know that volume remains in the lungs. In other words, we are intentionally trapping gas in the lung by limiting the release time. When we set T- high, we are really setting the frequency of releases, which is like setting the ventilator rate.
The previous case was a best case example. During weaning, patients often show signs of ventilatory instabilities such as Hyper or Hypoventilation, tachypnea, or are simply not adequately ventilated. SmartCare classifies these situations into 8 different diagnoses, and adapts the pressure support accordingly to bring the patient back-on-track. For every diagnosis a different set of therapeutic measures is incorporated into the protocol.
Advanced modes of Mechanical Ventilation-Do we need them?
Advanced Modes of Mechanical Ventilation Dr. T.R. Chandrashekar Intensivist K.R.Hospital Bangalore
Issues <ul><li>One hour lecture </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-lunch session </li></ul><ul><li>Last lecture of the workshop </li></ul><ul><li>Not much hands on experience for many of us </li></ul><ul><li>How to make it interesting ? </li></ul><ul><li>I divided my lecture in to two parts </li></ul><ul><li>Why do we require them? </li></ul><ul><li>And a few new modes </li></ul>
Outline of the talk <ul><li>Which modes qualify as newer modes? </li></ul><ul><li>Why do we require newer modes? </li></ul><ul><li>Let us conceptualize the newer modes </li></ul><ul><li>My classification of newer modes </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence base ? </li></ul><ul><li>A few important modes- I will discuss </li></ul><ul><li>VAPS,APRV/BIPAP, PAV+, Smartcare, </li></ul>
The Engineering Problem <ul><li>The lung cannot expand itself, it can only move passively in response to external pressures </li></ul><ul><li>Two ways to get air into the lung </li></ul><ul><li>Create a negative pressure within the lung as occurs in free breathing humans </li></ul><ul><li>Create a positive pressure at the airway opening to push air into the lung-PPV </li></ul>Inspiration Mechanical Breath Spontaneous Breath Pressure Time
Smartcare ASV NAVA PAV PPS Advanced/ Closed loop ventilation APRV/BIPAP DUOPAP Advanced Modes that are going to stay in practice …..
What are Physicians Doing? 1,638 patients in 412 ICUs 47% Assist-Control Ventilation 46% Pressure Support and/or SIMV 7% Other Variability in modes across nations No variability in settings Esteban et al, AJRCCM 2000; 161:1450-8
Modes of Ventilation during Weaning Esteban et al, AJRCCM 2000;161:1450 PS SIMV + PS Intermittent SB trials Others SIMV Daily SB trials Number of ventilated patients, (%)
<ul><li>Why newer modes were introduced ? </li></ul><ul><li>Let us understand how they are different from the conventional modes </li></ul>
The goal of mechanical ventilation <ul><li>In the acute setting is to ‘‘buy time’’ to give a patient a chance to recover from some catastrophe. </li></ul><ul><li>The ideal ventilator would not damage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Respiratory muscles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lung parenchyma </li></ul></ul>
Goals of ventilation Setting the Ventilator Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury Lung protective ventilation Gas Exchange PaO2/PaCo2 Accepting hypoxia and hypercarbia Due to low volume ventilation Patient Comfort Synchrony sedation /paralysis Early weaning Hemodynamics
Patient effort Ventilator assistance . Kondili et al, Br J Anesthesia 2003;91:106 Resistive load Elastic load . Pmus Paw Resistance x flow Compliance x volume + + = Equation of motion for Mechanical Ventilation Controlled ventilation Pt/vent work shared-interaction
Advanced modes <ul><li>Are useful only if (Pmus ) patients effort is involved </li></ul><ul><li>Are useful once weaning is initiated </li></ul><ul><li>Modes of Ventilation </li></ul><ul><li>Conventional modes (Open loop ventilation) </li></ul><ul><li>Closed loop Ventilation </li></ul><ul><li>Advanced Closed loop Ventilation </li></ul>
Conventional Modes( Open loop) Basic modes-CMV/SIMV/PS Clinician Ventilator Patient Once parameters are set there is no sharing of information between the ventilator and the patient same settings are delivered each breath unless the clinician wants to change the settings Patient has to adapt to the ventilator
Advanced modes- Closed Loop Ventilation Closed Ventilation-ASV/PAV+/NAVA Clinician Ventilator Patient % of support/ parameters are set- there is sharing of information between the ventilator and the patient which leads to change in every delivered breath appropriate to patients lung characteristics –Resistance / compliance /Edi Ventilator Adapts to the patient Information is feed back from pt to vent
Advanced Closed Loop Ventilation Advanced Closed Ventilation- Smartcare/NeoGanesh Clinician Ventilator Patient Intensivists brain What SmartCare/PS does Monitor the patient for at least 15 min Classify situation into one of 8 diagnoses A clinical protocol is stored in the knowledge base Adjust Pressure Support. Step width varies based on actual pressure, humidification etc. Monitor ≥ 15 min Select therapeutic measure Classify every 5min Adjust Pressure Support < 4 cmH2O
Anything close to normal physiology is Advanced What is close to physiology in positive pressure ventilation? Ventilation starts /ends / and is as much as the brain wants
What is close to physiology in positive pressure ventilation? <ul><li>Neural inspiratory time = Ventilatory inspiratory time </li></ul><ul><li>Neural Expiratory time = Ventilatory Expiratory time </li></ul><ul><li>Support is Proportional to what patient wants </li></ul><ul><li>How can this be done? </li></ul>
NAVA PAV+/ASV Respiratory center output Peripheral nerve transmission Muscle Electrical activation Contraction Lung distension Respiratory compliance Airway resistance Airway opening pressure Flow/volume Alveolar ventilation Gas exchange Blood gases Proportionality of support means Support stats and ends and is as much as the Brain wants Chemo receptors Lung and airway reflexes Respiratory muscle afferents If ventilator uses any of These parameter to alter Breath pattern then ventilation will Be more synchronized and Proportional to what brain wants
PAV+ vs. PCV /PSV example PCV 15 cmH2O PAV+ at 75% Compared to PCV, the PAV+ mode better matches patient’s effort to ventilator output. PAV+ P T P T P T P T P T P T Proportional support has synchronised inspiration to expiration cycling
What are the problems with conventional modes ? Trigger delay/Synchrony issues
Phases of ventilatory cycle Delay, Missed breaths Flow not proportionate to patients effort -dyssynchrony/overassist VIDD/ Runway Asynchrony can occur at the start of a breath (trigger asynchrony Asynchrony can occur during the breath (flow asynchrony Asynchrony can occur at the end of a breath (cycle or termination asynchrony).
NAVA Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist Recorded electrical activity of the diaphragm % of support is based upon a gain factor, set by the clinician, which translates a given electrical activity of the diaphragm into pressure assist Translates into a positive relationship between ventilator assistance and patient effort Esophagus
NAVA-what the brain wants? Output is after analysing many inputs
Sinderby et al, Nature Med 1999;5:1433 Time (s) 0 1 4 3 2 0 1 4 3 2 Airway Pressure Trigger Onset of diaphragmatic electrical activity Onset of ventilator flow Neural Trigger 0 20 -5.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 -1 0 1 Flow (l/s) Volume (l) P es (cm H 2 O) P aw (cm H 2 O ) Missed breaths
Better synchrony Studies prove Better quality of sleep and less arousals- PAV+/NAVA Patient may do more work (WOB) on ventilator if there is dys-synchrony between the ventilator and the patient
A possible case scenario… <ul><li>Patient on PS mode 14 cms of H2O and PEEP </li></ul><ul><li>7 cms of H2O has a RR 30 with VT of 7 ml/kg </li></ul><ul><li>What will we do? </li></ul><ul><li>We think RR is more because PS is less and Increase PS </li></ul><ul><li>What happens? </li></ul>
Proportional support is vital No Diaphragm activity Missed breaths Over assist leads to increased Tidal volume Auto PEEP –missed breaths and also decreased diaphragm activity Possibly to much pressure support which had suppressed the diaphragmatic activity Increase the PS
Automated mechanical ventilation is the future <ul><li>A growing number of medical errors in the literature related to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Workload </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Due to the shortage of personnel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High frequency of severe ‘burnout syndrome’ among physicians and nurses working in ICUs. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High frequency of staff turnover </li></ul></ul>
Automated mechanical ventilation is the future <ul><li>In the study by Donchin et al , </li></ul><ul><li>Average number of activities per patient per day was 178, </li></ul><ul><li>An estimated mean number of errors per patient per day was 1.7 </li></ul><ul><li>Activities related to breathing were the most frequent </li></ul><ul><li>(26% of all activities), </li></ul><ul><li>Errors related to breathing were the second most frequent </li></ul><ul><li>(23% of all errors), after errors related to data entry </li></ul>
Striving for better outcomes: <ul><li>The three </li></ul><ul><li>• S pontaneous breathing (Girard 2008; MacIntyre 2000, Levine 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>• S ynchrony (Chao 1997;Thille 2006; De Wit 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>• S edation management (Kress 2000, Girard 2008, De Wit 2009) </li></ul>“S”s All reduce time on mechanical ventilation Nearly 50% time is spend on weaning
Short of staff Closed loop = Less work in ICU Quick weaning = Short stay in ICU Easy to use = Less need for specialists Low costs High patient safety Advantages:
The Future of Mechanical Ventilation Automated mechanical ventilation is the future
My classification of new MODES <ul><li>Dual modes </li></ul><ul><li>Which combine Volume mode + Pressure modes- </li></ul><ul><li>VS, MMV, VAPS, PRVC etc… </li></ul><ul><li>Modes which adapt to lung characteristics/proprotional support ( Resistance & Compliance/Edi) PAV+, ASV, NAVA </li></ul><ul><li>Better trigger mechanism- NAVA </li></ul><ul><li>Spontaneous breathing + higher FRC- APRV/ BIPAP </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge based Weaning modes- Smartcare, ATC, </li></ul>
Arguments Against New Modes <ul><li>Lack high-level evidence for better patient outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>If we try a new mode and the patient has a good outcome, we say it was due to the new mode. </li></ul><ul><li>But if try a new mode and there is a bad outcome, we say the patient was going to die anyway. </li></ul><ul><li>Potential for harm (these are often not reported) </li></ul><ul><li>Improved gas exchange does not necessarily improve </li></ul><ul><li>outcomes: high tidal volume, iNO, prone </li></ul><ul><li>New is not necessarily better </li></ul><ul><li>Solution to a problem or in search of a problem? </li></ul>
Better oxygenation, faster weaning, lesser sedation, less Asynchrony YES- BUT mortality benefit not proved <ul><li>Dual modes most popular but no great evidence </li></ul><ul><li>BIPAP no great evidence </li></ul><ul><li>NAVA -emerging evidence even in children and NIV </li></ul><ul><li>ASV - physiological mode –accumulating evidence (ARDS/COPD) </li></ul><ul><li>PAV +-better than PAV, physiological mode –accumulating evidence, NIV good evidence </li></ul><ul><li>Smartcare -unique mode can say ventilator has intensivist’s brain-good evidence for weaning </li></ul>
Why New Modes? <ul><li>Address important clinical issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Poor trigger </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proportional assist to match patients effort </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve patient - ventilator synchrony! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less sedation/NM blockers-VAP/VIDD/CCIW </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More rapid weaning! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less likelihood of VILI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less hemodynamic compromise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More effectively ventilate/oxygenate! </li></ul></ul>Satisfies our craving for adventure - (engineers and clinicians) We like better numbers - (seduction by pulse oximetry) We do not have a single mode which does all these Some have a few of Them- So the quest is still on….. Noisy breathing
I will discuss these modes <ul><li>VAPS </li></ul><ul><li>PAV+, </li></ul><ul><li>BIPAP </li></ul><ul><li>Smartcare </li></ul><ul><li>NAVA </li></ul>/APRV
Lung Compliance Changes and the P-V Loop Volume (mL) PIP levels Preset V T P aw (cm H 2 O) Volume Targeted Ventilation COMPLIANCE Increased Normal Decreased
Volume Control : good and bad <ul><li>Guaranteed tidal volume- even with variable compliance and resistance. </li></ul><ul><li>Less atelectasis compared to pressure control. </li></ul><ul><li>Can cause excessive airway pressure-VILI </li></ul><ul><li>The limited flow available may not meet the patient’s desired inspiratory flow rate-asynchrony </li></ul><ul><li>Leaks = Volume loss </li></ul>
Lung Compliance Changes and the P-V Loop Volume (mL) Preset PIP V T levels P aw (cm H 2 O) COMPLIANCE Increased Normal Decreased Pressure Targeted Ventilation
Pressure Control : good and bad <ul><li>• Limits excessive airway pressure </li></ul><ul><li>• Improves gas distribution </li></ul><ul><li>• Less VT as pulmonary mechanics change-atelectasis </li></ul><ul><li>• Potentially excessive VT as compliance improves </li></ul>
60 -20 60 Flow L/min Volume Switch from Pressure control to Volume control L 0 0.6 40 VAPS-Volume assured Pressure Support Normal PS If Compliance decreases P aw cmH 2 0 Set tidal volume cycle threshold Set pressure limit Tidal volume met Tidal volume not met Flow cycle
Dual Modes <ul><li>Volume target achieved-can target a pressure limit </li></ul><ul><li>Issues not addressed </li></ul><ul><li>Trigger delay </li></ul><ul><li>No Proportional support-VIDD/fatigue </li></ul><ul><li>Not taking into account lung mechanic’s resistance/compliance </li></ul><ul><li>Not physiological -asynchrony </li></ul>
PAV +(Proportional Assist Ventilation) <ul><li>Provides pressure, flow assist, and volume assist in proportion to the patient’s spontaneous effort, the greater the patient’s effort, the higher the flow, volume, and pressure </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The operator sets the ventilator’s volume and flow assist at approximately 80% of patient’s elastance and resistance. The ventilator then generates proportional flow and volume assist to augment the patient’s own effort </li></ul></ul></ul>
PAV+ uses the compliance and resistance information collected every 4-10 breaths to know what it’s fighting against . PAV+ uses the flow and volume information collected every 5 milliseconds to know what the patient wants. PAV+ combines this data with the %Supp information input by the clinician to determine how much pressure to supply to the system. PAV+
The clinician will NOT set a rate, tidal volume, flow or target pressure. Instead, the clinician will simply set the percentage of work that the ventilator should do. f %Supp x x x x PAV+ V . V t P i
PAV+ Start patients at 70% and wean back to stabilize When disease process has sufficiently reversed, decrease %Support over 2 hr intervals
+ PAV+ Potential Benefits 1. Comfort. 2. Lower peak airway pressure. 3. Less need for paralysis and/or sedation. 4. Less likelihood for over ventilation. 5. Preservation and enhancement of patient’s own control mechanisms such as metabolic ABG control and Hering-Breuer reflex. Some patients have a high rate normally, so a high rate on PAV + may or may not reflect distress; check other signs; Try increasing assist to see if rate goes down Don’t be surprised if RR climbs when switching from other modes
<ul><li>Circuit MUST be free of large leaks (small leaks are okay). </li></ul><ul><li>No external nebulizers which add flow. </li></ul>PAV+ Limitations PAV+ is NOT recommended for… <ul><li>Low Respiratory drive </li></ul><ul><li>Abnormal breathing pattern </li></ul><ul><li>Extreme air trapping </li></ul><ul><li>Large mechanical leaks (TEF). </li></ul><ul><li>Children </li></ul>
Conventional Ventilation in ALI/ARDS Low PEEP - Normal V T High PEEP - Normal V T High PEEP - Low V T <ul><li>de- recruitment </li></ul><ul><li>shear force injury </li></ul><ul><li>overdistention </li></ul><ul><li>volutrauma </li></ul><ul><li>hypercapnia </li></ul><ul><li>heavy sedation </li></ul>
APRV/BIPAP <ul><li>Maintain high FRC-better oxygenation </li></ul><ul><li>Lung in safe zone-less de-recruitment /VILI </li></ul><ul><li>Spontaneous breaths- diaphragm is active hence less VIDD/better Hemodynamics </li></ul><ul><li>Less sedation and analgesia? Conflicting results </li></ul><ul><li>APRV is IRV hence more impetus on Oxygenation/ synchrony problems persist </li></ul><ul><li>BIPAP less IRV less synchrony problems </li></ul>Keeps the lung in lung protective zone Zone of Atelectasis
Spontaneous ventilation in assisted breaths Diaphragm with sedation P abdominal Area of increased ventilation Area of increased perfusion Risk of over distention Risk of atelectasis Good ventilated area Area with good perfusion R ! R ! R ! Spontaneous breathing Diaphragm with low sedation1 Spontaneous ventilation in assisted breaths Controlled ventilation Better V/Q Less VILI R ! R ! R !
APRV settings P aw T high (4-5) Sec T low P high P low ( 1 sec) Time-triggered, Time-cycled, Pressure-limited, Spontaneous breathing is allowed at any point during the ventilatory cycle FLOW P high -This parameter is set with the goal of improving oxygenation. P low -The setting of this parameter has the goal of facilitating ventilation or CO2 clearance. It is this inverse inspiratory:expiratory (I:E) ratio that distinguishes APRV from bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP=1:1 or more) Inverse ratio ventilation
BiLevel Ventilation: <ul><li>Uses 2 pressure levels for 2 time periods </li></ul><ul><li>PEEP low & PEEP high , T high and T low </li></ul><ul><li>Patient triggering & cycling can change phases </li></ul><ul><li>If PS is set higher than PEEP H , the PS pressure is applied to a spontaneous effort at upper pressure </li></ul>From PB product lit. If set PS < than Phigh then only applied in the lower pressure level P T Synchronized Transitions PEEP HIGH PEEP LOW T LOW T HIGH Synchronized Transitions PEEP High + PS P PEEP L PEEP H Pressure Support Spontaneous Breaths P Pressure Support T
5 possible breath types in BIPAP High incidence of asynchrony issues
Spontaneous breaths in assisted ventilation <ul><li>Increased Transpulmonary pressure </li></ul><ul><li>Difference between the alveolar pressure and the intrapleural pressure in the lungs (Palv-Ppl) </li></ul><ul><li>Transpulmonary pressure is the main determinant of VILI </li></ul>
Pplat = Palv; Pplat = Transpulmonary Pressure? transpulmonary pressure = 45 cm H 2 O 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -5 -10 -15 45 cms of H2O PCV 20 cm H 2 O, PEEP 10 cm H 2 O; Pplat 30 cm H 2 O -15 cm H 2 O Active inspiratory effort
Different factors may promote reduced lung injury during assisted ventilation <ul><li>Recruitment of dependent atelectatic lung regions, reducing shear stress forces; </li></ul><ul><li>More homogeneous distribution of regional transpulmonary pressures; </li></ul><ul><li>Variability of breathing pattern; </li></ul><ul><li>Redistribution of perfusion towards non-atelectatic injured areas </li></ul><ul><li>Improved lymphatic drainage </li></ul>
SmartCare/NeoGanesh <ul><li>Is an automated weaning system that controls the ventilator in order to stabilize a patient’s spontaneous breathing in a “comfortable zone” and to reduce inspiratory support until the patient can be extubated. </li></ul>
The “Zone of Respiratory Comfort” or “ZoRC” <ul><li>The 3 monitored parameters: </li></ul><ul><li>• spontaneous breath rate, fspn </li></ul><ul><li>• spontaneous tidal volume, VT </li></ul><ul><li>• etCO2 </li></ul><ul><li>“ ZoRC”-Goals: </li></ul><ul><li>Regulate Pressure Support to stabilize the patient within their ZoRC </li></ul><ul><li>2) Reduce PS stepwise ( in steps of 2 to 4 cmsH2o ) to no support, keeping the patient within their ZoRC. </li></ul><ul><li>3) Conduct a Spontaneous Breathing Trial with no support; if patient remains within ZoRC, recommend separation from ventilator. </li></ul>
SmartCare/PS Back-on-track <ul><li>If the patients deviate from normal ventilation, </li></ul><ul><li>SmartCare stabilizes the patients and brings them back-on-track. </li></ul>SmartCare automated weaning | Hartmut Schmidt | 10.Jan.2007
Smartcare These therapeutic measures are based on a clinical protocol that has been tested and verified during several years of development ..
SmartCare- the clinical evidence <ul><li>In February 2008, the FDA gave clearance for additional claims of efficacy SmartCare can </li></ul><ul><li>Reduce overall ventilation time by 33% </li></ul><ul><li>Decrease ICU length of stay by up to 20% </li></ul><ul><li>Reduce weaning duration by up to 40% </li></ul>
New Modes of Mechanical Ventilation: Summary <ul><li>Older modes & ventilators: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>passive, operator-dependant tools </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New modes on new generation ventilators: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>adaptively interactive to patient </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>goal oriented </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low operator activity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adapted from John J. Marini, MD; AARC congress, 11/98 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
The Evidence for New Ventilator Modes … <ul><li>It’s not the ventilator mode that makes a difference … </li></ul><ul><li>… It’s the skills of the clinician that makes the difference. </li></ul><ul><li>Any ventilator mode has the potential to do harm! </li></ul><ul><li>High level evidence is lacking that any new ventilator </li></ul><ul><li>mode improves patient outcomes compared to existing </li></ul><ul><li>lung-protective ventilation strategies. </li></ul>Dean Hess
Thank you Innovation and Automation is the future