Effects of Trigger Algorithms on Trigger Performance and Patient-Ventilator Synchrony.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Respiratory care Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-07 DOI:10.1089/respcare.12694
Keisuke Morinishi, Taiga Itagaki, Yusuke Akimoto, Yusuke Chikata, Jun Oto
{"title":"Effects of Trigger Algorithms on Trigger Performance and Patient-Ventilator Synchrony.","authors":"Keisuke Morinishi, Taiga Itagaki, Yusuke Akimoto, Yusuke Chikata, Jun Oto","doi":"10.1089/respcare.12694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Patient-ventilator synchrony is essential for successful patient-triggered ventilation. This study compared the ability of a trigger algorithm, based on detailed analysis of flow changes (IntelliSync+, Hamilton Medical), to trigger patient breaths with conventional algorithms. <b>Methods:</b> Three models with different lung mechanics (normal, ARDS, and COPD) at 3 severities were simulated with a lung model ventilated in pressure control continuous mandatory ventilation or pressure control continuous spontaneous ventilation (PC-CSV). Inspiratory pressure above PEEP was set at 15 cm H<sub>2</sub>O and PEEP at 5 cm H<sub>2</sub>O. Inspiratory trigger was selected from IntelliSync+ (IS+insp), flow trigger (1- 5 L/min), or pressure trigger (-1 to -5 cm H<sub>2</sub>O). In PC-CSV, expiratory trigger was set at IntelliSync+ (IS+exp) or cycling criteria (5%, 25%, and 40% for ARDS, normal, and COPD, respectively). Measurements were performed with and without leak (50% inspiratory tidal volume). Five breaths per condition were collected to calculate trigger delay time and asynchronous events. <b>Results:</b> For pressure trigger, none of the conditions resulted in 3 successfully triggered consecutive breaths. Overall trigger delay time was significantly longer with flow trigger than with IS+insp in normal (99 vs 81 ms without leak, <i>P</i> < .001; 98 vs 80 ms with leak, <i>P</i> < .001) and ARDS models (334 vs 223 ms without leak, <i>P</i> < .001; 320 vs 236 ms with leak, <i>P</i> = .02). Across all conditions, ineffective efforts occurred more frequently with flow trigger than with IS+insp (7.3% vs 1.5% without leak, <i>P</i> = .01; 10.8% vs 3.0% with leak, <i>P</i> = .01). In PC-CSV, overall cycling delay time with IS+exp was equivalent or longer compared with cycling criteria. <b>Conclusions:</b> In this lung model study, IS+insp demonstrated similar trigger time and fewer ineffective efforts compared with flow trigger even in simulated respiratory conditions, whereas cycling delay time was unaffected by IS+exp because of large variations between conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":"1285-1293"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/respcare.12694","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient-ventilator synchrony is essential for successful patient-triggered ventilation. This study compared the ability of a trigger algorithm, based on detailed analysis of flow changes (IntelliSync+, Hamilton Medical), to trigger patient breaths with conventional algorithms. Methods: Three models with different lung mechanics (normal, ARDS, and COPD) at 3 severities were simulated with a lung model ventilated in pressure control continuous mandatory ventilation or pressure control continuous spontaneous ventilation (PC-CSV). Inspiratory pressure above PEEP was set at 15 cm H2O and PEEP at 5 cm H2O. Inspiratory trigger was selected from IntelliSync+ (IS+insp), flow trigger (1- 5 L/min), or pressure trigger (-1 to -5 cm H2O). In PC-CSV, expiratory trigger was set at IntelliSync+ (IS+exp) or cycling criteria (5%, 25%, and 40% for ARDS, normal, and COPD, respectively). Measurements were performed with and without leak (50% inspiratory tidal volume). Five breaths per condition were collected to calculate trigger delay time and asynchronous events. Results: For pressure trigger, none of the conditions resulted in 3 successfully triggered consecutive breaths. Overall trigger delay time was significantly longer with flow trigger than with IS+insp in normal (99 vs 81 ms without leak, P < .001; 98 vs 80 ms with leak, P < .001) and ARDS models (334 vs 223 ms without leak, P < .001; 320 vs 236 ms with leak, P = .02). Across all conditions, ineffective efforts occurred more frequently with flow trigger than with IS+insp (7.3% vs 1.5% without leak, P = .01; 10.8% vs 3.0% with leak, P = .01). In PC-CSV, overall cycling delay time with IS+exp was equivalent or longer compared with cycling criteria. Conclusions: In this lung model study, IS+insp demonstrated similar trigger time and fewer ineffective efforts compared with flow trigger even in simulated respiratory conditions, whereas cycling delay time was unaffected by IS+exp because of large variations between conditions.

触发算法对触发性能和患者-呼吸机同步的影响。
背景:患者-呼吸机同步是患者触发通气成功的关键。本研究比较了基于流量变化的详细分析(IntelliSync+, Hamilton Medical)的触发算法与常规算法触发患者呼吸的能力。方法:采用压力控制连续强制通气或压力控制连续自发通气(PC-CSV)肺模型,模拟3种不同肺力学模型(正常、ARDS和COPD)的3个严重程度。呼气末正压≥15 cm H2O,呼气末正压≥5 cm H2O。吸气触发从IntelliSync+ (IS+insp)、流量触发(1- 5 L/min)或压力触发(-1至-5 cm H2O)中选择。在PC-CSV中,呼气触发设定为IntelliSync+ (IS+exp)或循环标准(ARDS、normal和COPD分别为5%、25%和40%)。测量在有和没有泄漏(50%吸气潮气量)的情况下进行。每个条件收集5次呼吸,以计算触发延迟时间和异步事件。结果:对于压力触发,没有任何条件导致3次成功触发连续呼吸。在正常情况下,流量触发的总触发延迟时间明显长于IS+insp (99 ms vs 81 ms无泄漏,P < 0.001;98 ms vs 80 ms有泄漏,P < 0.001)和ARDS模型(334 ms vs 223 ms无泄漏,P < 0.001;320 vs 236 ms泄漏,P = 0.02)。在所有条件下,流量触发比IS+insp更频繁地发生无效措施(7.3% vs 1.5%, P = 0.01;10.8% vs 3.0%泄漏,P = 0.01)。在PC-CSV中,与循环标准相比,IS+exp的总体循环延迟时间相等或更长。结论:在本肺模型研究中,即使在模拟呼吸条件下,与流量触发相比,IS+exp显示出相似的触发时间和更少的无效努力,而循环延迟时间不受IS+exp的影响,因为条件之间存在很大差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Respiratory care
Respiratory care 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
16.00%
发文量
209
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信