Robin L Goossen, Sibilla Gavinelli, Simone Dragoni, David M P van Meenen, Frederique Paulus, Marcus J S Schultz, Lorenzo Ball, Nicolo' Antonino Patroniti, Chiara Robba
{"title":"Brain protective ventilation in acute brain injury patients with use of fully automated ventilation (BRAVE): A cross-over clinical trial.","authors":"Robin L Goossen, Sibilla Gavinelli, Simone Dragoni, David M P van Meenen, Frederique Paulus, Marcus J S Schultz, Lorenzo Ball, Nicolo' Antonino Patroniti, Chiara Robba","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Invasive ventilation can be challenging in acute brain injury (ABI) patients as partial pressure of carbon dioxide and oxygen need to be kept in precise optimal ranges while simultaneously applying lung-protective ventilation. Fully automated ventilation may be effective in achieving protective ventilation targets for brain and lung.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare automated ventilation to conventional ventilation for ABI patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Single-centre, observational, cross-over trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Primary care hospital in Italy, recruiting in 2024.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Twenty ABI patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed 3 h of data collection during conventional ventilation followed by 3 h of data collection during automated ventilation.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>The primary endpoint was the percentage of breaths in three predefined zones of ventilatory targets, defined as optimal, acceptable and critical. The zones were based on patient-specific ranges of four measures: end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), tidal volume (VT), and maximum airway pressures (Pmax).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 20 patients were included. With automated ventilation the proportion [range] of breaths within the optimal zone significantly increased from 2.7% [0.0 to 23.4] to 30.5% [0.9 to 66.3] (P < 0.001). Automated ventilation markedly decreased the proportion of breaths in the critical zone, from 16.6% [1.9 to 41.3] to 2.1% [0.5 to 7.4] (P < 0.001), while slightly reducing breaths in the acceptable zone from 58.1% [34.4 to 90.9] to 45.1% [25.4 to 90.8] (P < 0.001). Optimal breaths increased for EtCO2, SpO2, and VT, but declined for Pmax with automation. The percentage of time spent in each ventilation zone mirrored the percentage of breaths in each zone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Automated ventilation outperformed conventional ventilation in maintaining protective ventilation targets for brain and lung in ABI patients.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT06367816.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002253","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Invasive ventilation can be challenging in acute brain injury (ABI) patients as partial pressure of carbon dioxide and oxygen need to be kept in precise optimal ranges while simultaneously applying lung-protective ventilation. Fully automated ventilation may be effective in achieving protective ventilation targets for brain and lung.
Objectives: To compare automated ventilation to conventional ventilation for ABI patients.
Setting: Primary care hospital in Italy, recruiting in 2024.
Patients: Twenty ABI patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.
Methods: We performed 3 h of data collection during conventional ventilation followed by 3 h of data collection during automated ventilation.
Main outcome measure: The primary endpoint was the percentage of breaths in three predefined zones of ventilatory targets, defined as optimal, acceptable and critical. The zones were based on patient-specific ranges of four measures: end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), tidal volume (VT), and maximum airway pressures (Pmax).
Results: A total of 20 patients were included. With automated ventilation the proportion [range] of breaths within the optimal zone significantly increased from 2.7% [0.0 to 23.4] to 30.5% [0.9 to 66.3] (P < 0.001). Automated ventilation markedly decreased the proportion of breaths in the critical zone, from 16.6% [1.9 to 41.3] to 2.1% [0.5 to 7.4] (P < 0.001), while slightly reducing breaths in the acceptable zone from 58.1% [34.4 to 90.9] to 45.1% [25.4 to 90.8] (P < 0.001). Optimal breaths increased for EtCO2, SpO2, and VT, but declined for Pmax with automation. The percentage of time spent in each ventilation zone mirrored the percentage of breaths in each zone.
Conclusion: Automated ventilation outperformed conventional ventilation in maintaining protective ventilation targets for brain and lung in ABI patients.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).