Effect of external PEEP in patients under controlled mechanical ventilation with an auto-PEEP of 5 cmH2O or higher.

Abstract

In some patients with auto-positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP), application of PEEP lower than auto-PEEP maintains a constant total PEEP, therefore reducing the inspiratory threshold load without detrimental cardiovascular or respiratory effects. We refer to these patients as complete PEEP-absorbers. Conversely, adverse effects of PEEP application could occur in patients with auto-PEEP when the total PEEP rises as a consequence. From a pathophysiological perspective, all subjects with flow limitation are expected to be complete PEEP-absorbers, whereas PEEP should increase total PEEP in all other patients. This study aimed to empirically assess the extent to which flow limitation alone explains a complete PEEP-absorber behavior (i.e., absence of further hyperinflation with PEEP), and to identify other factors associated with it.One hundred patients with auto-PEEP of at least 5 cmH2O at zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) during controlled mechanical ventilation were enrolled. Total PEEP (i.e., end-expiratory plateau pressure) was measured both at ZEEP and after applied PEEP equal to 80 % of auto-PEEP measured at ZEEP. All measurements were repeated three times, and the average value was used for analysis.Forty-seven percent of the patients suffered from chronic pulmonary disease and 52 % from acute pulmonary disease; 61 % showed flow limitation at ZEEP, assessed by manual compression of the abdomen. The mean total PEEP was 7 ± 2 cmH2O at ZEEP and 9 ± 2 cmH2O after the application of PEEP (p < 0.001). Thirty-three percent of the patients were complete PEEP-absorbers. Multiple logistic regression was used to predict the behavior of complete PEEP-absorber. The best model included a respiratory rate lower than 20 breaths/min and the presence of flow limitation. The predictive ability of the model was excellent, with an overoptimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.89 (95 % CI 0.80-0.97).Expiratory flow limitation was associated with both high and complete PEEP-absorber behavior, but setting a relatively high respiratory rate on the ventilator can prevent from observing complete PEEP-absorption. Therefore, the effect of PEEP application in patients with auto-PEEP can be accurately predicted at the bedside by measuring the respiratory rate and observing the flow-volume loop during manual compression of the abdomen