Efficacy of ventilator waveforms observation in detecting patient–ventilator asynchrony*
- 1 November 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Critical Care Medicine
- Vol. 39 (11) , 2452-2457
- https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e318225753c
Abstract
Objectives: The value of visual inspection of ventilator waveforms in detecting patient–ventilator asynchronies in the intensive care unit has never been systematically evaluated. This study aims to assess intensive care unit physicians' ability to identify patient–ventilator asynchronies through ventilator waveforms. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: Intensive care unit of a University Hospital. Patients: Twenty-four patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Intervention: Forty-three 5-min reports displaying flow-time and airway pressure-time tracings were evaluated by 10 expert and 10 nonexpert, i.e., residents, intensive care unit physicians. The asynchronies identified by experts and nonexperts were compared with those ascertained by three independent examiners who evaluated the same reports displaying, additionally, tracings of diaphragm electrical activity. Measurements and Main Results: Data were examined according to both breath-by-breath analysis and overall report analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were determined. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were very low with breath-by-breath analysis (22% and 32%, respectively) and fairly increased with report analysis (55% and 44%, respectively). Conversely, specificity and negative predictive value were high with breath-by-breath analysis (91% and 86%, respectively) and slightly lower with report analysis (76% and 82%, respectively). Sensitivity was significantly higher for experts than for nonexperts for breath-by-breath analysis (28% vs. 16%, p < .05), but not for report analysis (63% vs. 46%, p = .15). The prevalence of asynchronies increased at higher ventilator assistance and tidal volumes (p < .001 for both), whereas it decreased at higher respiratory rates and diaphragm electrical activity (p < .001 for both). At higher prevalence, sensitivity decreased significantly (p < .001). Conclusions: The ability of intensive care unit physicians to recognize patient–ventilator asynchronies was overall quite low and decreased at higher prevalence; expertise significantly increased sensitivity for breath-by-breath analysis, whereas it only produced a trend toward improvement for report analysis.Keywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- Ineffective triggering predicts increased duration of mechanical ventilation*Critical Care Medicine, 2009
- Reduction of patient-ventilator asynchrony by reducing tidal volume during pressure-support ventilationIntensive Care Medicine, 2008
- Pressure support ventilation attenuates ventilator-induced protein modifications in the diaphragmCritical Care, 2008
- Non-invasive ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: helmet versus facial maskIntensive Care Medicine, 2006
- Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilationIntensive Care Medicine, 2006
- Bedside waveforms interpretation as a tool to identify patient-ventilator asynchroniesIntensive Care Medicine, 2005
- Advances in Mechanical VentilationNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- Patient-Ventilator Trigger Asynchrony in Prolonged Mechanical VentilationChest, 1997
- Comparison of assisted ventilator modes on triggering, patient effort, and dyspnea.American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 1997
- Patient-ventilator interaction and inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation in patients with different pathologiesEuropean Respiratory Journal, 1997