Keisuke Morinishi, Taiga Itagaki, Yusuke Akimoto, Yusuke Chikata, Jun Oto
{"title":"触发算法对触发性能和患者-呼吸机同步的影响。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Effects of Trigger Algorithms on Trigger Performance and Patient-Ventilator Synchrony.
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.
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.