View clinical trials related to Mechanical Power.
Filter by:The respiratory system receives mechanical power (MP) throughout time during mechanical ventilation. Despite its life-saving benefits, mechanical ventilation can cause ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Recently, VILI has been linked to mechanical power, or the amount of energy the mechanical ventilator sends to the respiratory system in a given time. The hunt for lung damage-reducing characteristics, notably after VILI and ARDS (Acute respiratory distress syndrome), has increased after Covid-19. Mechanical power must be used more to promote lung protection. We examined the effects of bilateral rectus sheath and OSTAP (Oblique Subcostal Transversus Abdominis Plane ) block on mechanically powered patients.
Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is a salvage treatment for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). With the large-scale implementation of VV-ECMO in critical care medicine departments in China, significant progress has been made in treating severe ARDS. However, the patient mortality rate remains high. The pathophysiological essence of ARDS is an imbalance between the body's oxygen supply and demand, causing tissue and cell hypoxia, organ dysfunction, and even death. The VV-ECMO treatment process still requires mechanical ventilation assistance. However, inappropriate mechanical ventilation settings can lead to ventilator-related lung injury (VILI). In recent years, mechanical power has gradually attracted everyone's attention and is considered the cause of VILI. The transpulmonary mechanical power is more accurate to the energy directly performed to the lung tissue. Transpulmonary mechanical energy has a specific value in judging the prognosis of mechanically ventilated patients, but its clinical significance in treating patients with VV-ECMO is unclear. This study aimed to explore the value of transpulmonary mechanical power in predicting the prognosis of patients with severe ARDS patients treated with VV-ECMO.
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare three open-lung strategies on respiratory function and lung injury in protective ventilation for laparoscopic anterior resection. It aims to answer whether a periodic alveolar recruitment maneuvers (PARM) strategy alone was an appropriate open-lung strategy in intraoperative protective ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive one of three open-lung strategies in protective ventilation: PARM alone (alveolar recruitment maneuvers [ARM] repeated every 30 min), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) alone (a PEEP of 6 to 8 cm H2O), or a combination of PEEP and PARM (a PEEP of 6 to 8 cm H2O combined with ARM repeated every 30 min). The primary outcome is the mechanical power before the end of intraoperative mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included the accumulative intraoperative mechanical power, an arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) / inhaled oxygen concentration (FiO2) ratio (P/F ratio) before the end of intraoperative mechanical ventilation, the rates of respiratory failure at post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and three postoperative days, the concentration of soluble advanced glycation end products receptor (sRAGE) and Clara cell protein 16 (CC16) at the end of surgery, postoperative pulmonary complications score, postoperative hospitalization days and so on.
Analgosedation is usually given to critically ill patients admitted in ICU. Fentanyl is the most common agent used for this purpose. For sedative agent, midazolam and propofol are commonly administered. However, too much sedation is apparently associated with increased duration of mechanical ventilation, prolonged ICU stay, and increased mortality. In mechanically ventilated patients, mechanical power is the respiratory mechanic that can predict clinical outcomes including mortality in both ARDS and non-ARDS patients. Previous study demonstrated that sedating mechanically ventilated patients with propofol could decreased mechanical power. This was possibly associated with improved clinical outcomes in these patients. At present, there is no clinical study investigating effects of inhalation sedation on mechanical power and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients.
Several studies suggest fully-automated ventilation to ventilate with a lower amount of MP in unselected ICU patients, patients after cardiac surgery, and patients with and without ARDS. The current study will directly compare the amount of MP in invasively ventilated critically ill patients by calculating MP breath-by-breath, using the various equations proposed in the literature.
Prospective, observational, longitudinal study, September 2019 to March 2020 of all adult patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation treated at General Hospital of Zone 11 IMSS in Piedras Negras, Coahuila. The investigators aim to assess the relation of lung protective ventilation, mechanical power and driving pressure in mortality and SOFA of mechanically ventilated patients inside and outside ICU at the General Hospital of Zona 11 Piedras Negras, IMSS
Although mechanical ventilation remains the cornerstone of ARDS treatment, several experimental and clinical studies have undoubtedly demonstrated that it can contribute to high mortality through the developing of ventilator induced lung injury even in patients with plateau pressure <30 cmH2O. Since now there are no studies exploring the application of low flow extracorporeal CO2 removal and ultraprotective ventilation to reduce mechanical power, a composite index of VILI, independently from the value of plateau pressure or the severity of hypercapnia.
ARDS is the most common acute respiratory failure in the ICU and the mortality rate is still as high as 40%. Mechanical ventilation(MV) is the major supportive treatment for ARDS, but inappropriate ventilator setting could lead to patients suffering from Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury(VILI). VILI is an important factor in the aggravation of lung injury during MV. The main mechanism of VILI is the unreasonable pressure change (stress) causing excessive local stretch of the lung (strain), which eventually exceeds the capacity of the lung. The protective strategies during MV (limited platform pressure, low tidal volume, suitable PEEP) are important means of avoiding VILI during MV. The essences of these strategies are to limit the stress and strain of the lung during MV. However, these lung protective ventilation strategies only start from a single indicator and have certain limitations. Considering the various shortcoming of the current strategies, Amato et al. combined two indicators and proposed the concept of driving pressure(driving pressure=tidal volume/respiratory compliance). Several studies also confirmed that limiting the driving pressure can significantly improve patients' outcomes. But the concept of driving pressure and its safety threshold have certain limitations. Taking into the limitations of existing low tidal volume, limited platform pressure, and restricted driving pressure strategies in lung protection ventilation, Gattinoni et al. first integrated the all factors such as driving pressure, respiratory rate, airway resistance, respiratory rate and PEEP together and the concept of mechanical power was formally proposed.There is a good correlation between mechanical power and lung strain in a certain PEEP range. Cressoni et al. demonstrated through animal experiments that excessive mechanical power during MV caused significant VILI in animals; Guérin et al. also found that mechanical power was closely related to patient outcome in patients with ARDS. Not only that, but Gattinoni reanalyzed Güldner's experimental data and found that mechanical power is more valuable in reflecting lung damage than driving pressure. Mechanical power is a good indicator of response to patient VILI. Therefore, the investigators hypothesized that only limiting the driving pressure during MV of patients could not achieve ideal lung protective ventilation. Mechanical power may be a better indicator of response VILI; and the safety threshold of driving pressure based on retrospective analysis may not be suitable for patients with severe ARDS, and a lower driving pressure can protect patients with severe ARDS. This study intends to use a single-center, self-controlled study design to reflect lung injury through stress and strain and mechanical work of the lungs, to verify the safety of different driving pressures for severe ARDS, and to further find a safer driving margin for patients with severe ARDS