PHYSIOLOGY.ORG
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Research ArticleTranslational Physiology

Improved ventilation efficiency due to continuous gas flow compared to decelerating gas flow in mechanical ventilation: results of a porcine trial

Published Online:06 Jun 2023https://doi.org/10.1152/ajplung.00235.2022

Abstract

Download figureDownload PowerPoint

In pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV), a decelerating gas flow pattern occurs during inspiration and expiration. In contrast, flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) guarantees a continuous gas flow throughout the entire ventilation cycle where the inspiration and expiration phases are simply performed by a change of gas flow direction. The aim of this trial was to highlight the effects of different flow patterns on respiratory variables and gas exchange. Anesthetized pigs were ventilated with either FCV or PCV for 1 h and thereafter for 30 min each in a crossover comparison. Both ventilation modes were set with a peak pressure of 15 cmH2O, positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cmH2O, a respiratory rate of 20/min, and a fraction of inspired oxygen at 0.3. All respiratory variables were collected every 15 min. Tidal volume and respiratory minute volume were significantly lower in FCV (n = 5) compared with PCV (n = 5) animals [4.6 vs. 6.6, MD −2.0 (95% CI −2.6 to −1.4) mL/kg; P < 0.001 and 7.3 vs. 9.5, MD −2.2 (95% CI −3.3 to −1.0) L/min; P = 0.006]. Notwithstanding these differences, CO2-removal as well as oxygenation was not inferior in FCV compared with PCV. Mechanical ventilation with identical ventilator settings resulted in lower tidal volumes and consecutive minute volume in FCV compared with PCV. This finding can be explained physically by the continuous gas flow pattern in FCV that necessitates a lower alveolar pressure amplitude. Interestingly, gas exchange was comparable in both groups, which is suggestive of improved ventilation efficiency at a continuous gas flow pattern.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study examined the effects of a continuous (flow-controlled ventilation, FCV) vs. decelerating (pressure-controlled ventilation, PCV) gas flow pattern during mechanical ventilation. It was shown that FCV necessitates a lower alveolar pressure amplitude leading to reduced applied tidal volumes and consequently minute volume. Notwithstanding these differences, CO2-removal as well as oxygenation was not inferior in FCV compared with PCV, which is suggestive of improved gas exchange efficiency at a continuous gas flow pattern.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Barnes T, van Asseldonk D, Enk D. Minimisation of dissipated energy in the airways during mechanical ventilation by using constant inspiratory and expiratory flows - Flow-controlled ventilation (FCV). Med Hypotheses 121: 167–176, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2018.09.038.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 2. Barnes T, Enk D. Ventilation for low dissipated energy achieved using flow control during both inspiration and expiration. Trends Anaesth Crit Care 24: 5–12, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.tacc.2018.09.003.
    Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 3. Enk D, Spraider P, Abram J, Barnes T. Pressure measurements in flow-controlled ventilation. Crit Care Med 48: e1359–e1360, 2020. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004561.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 4. Enk D, Abram J, Spraider P, Barnes T. Dynamic compliance in flow-controlled ventilation. Intensive Care Med Exp 9: 26 , 2021. doi:10.1186/s40635-021-00392-w.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 5. Spraider P, Martini J, Abram J, Putzer G, Glodny B, Hell T, Barnes T, Enk D. Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study. Crit Care 24: 662 , 2020. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03325-3.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 6. Swindle MM, Makin A, Herron AJ, Clubb FJ Jr, Frazier KS. Swine as models in biomedical research and toxicology testing. Vet Pathol 49: 344–356, 2012 [Erratum in Vet Pathol 49: 738, 2012]. doi:10.1177/0300985811402846.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 7. Schmidt J, Wenzel C, Spassov S, Borgmann S, Lin Z, Wollborn J, Weber J, Haberstroh J, Meckel S, Eiden S, Wirth S, Schumann S. Flow-controlled ventilation attenuates lung injury in a porcine model of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a preclinical randomized controlled study. Crit Care Med 48: e241–e248, 2020. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004209.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 8. Schmidt J, Wenzel C, Mahn M, Spassov S, Cristina Schmitz H, Borgmann S, Lin Z, Haberstroh J, Meckel S, Eiden S, Wirth S, Buerkle H, Schumann S. Improved lung recruitment and oxygenation during mandatory ventilation with a new expiratory ventilation assistance device: A controlled interventional trial in healthy pigs. Eur J Anaesthesiol 35: 736–744, 2018. doi:10.1097/EJA.0000000000000819.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 9. Weber J, Straka L, Borgmann S, Schmidt J, Wirth S, Schumann S. Flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) improves regional ventilation in obese patients - a randomized controlled crossover trial. BMC Anesthesiol 20: 24 , 2020. doi:10.1186/s12871-020-0944-y.
    Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar
  • 10. Vassalli F, Pasticci I, Romitti F, Duscio E, Aßmann DJ, Grünhagen H, Vasques F, Bonifazi M, Busana M, Macrì MM, Giosa L, Reupke V, Herrmann P, Hahn G, Leopardi O, Moerer O, Quintel M, Marini JJ, Gattinoni L. Does iso-mechanical power lead to iso-lung damage?: an experimental study in a porcine model. Anesthesiology 132: 1126–1137, 2020. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000003189.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 11. Serpa Neto A, Deliberato RO, Johnson AEW, Bos LD, Amorim P, Pereira SM, Cazati DC, Cordioli RL, Correa TD, Pollard TJ, Schettino GPP, Timenetsky KT, Celi LA, Pelosi P, Gama de Abreu M, Schultz MJ; PROVE Network Investigators. Mechanical power of ventilation is associated with mortality in critically ill patients: an analysis of patients in two observational cohorts. Intensive Care Med 44: 1914–1922, 2018. doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5375-6.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 12. Zhang Z, Zheng B, Liu N, Ge H, Hong Y. Mechanical power normalized to predicted body weight as a predictor of mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 45: 856–864, 2019. doi:10.1007/s00134-019-05627-9.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 13. Dianti J, Matelski J, Tisminetzky M, Walkey AJ, Munshi L, Del Sorbo L, Fan E, Costa EL, Hodgson CL, Brochard L, Goligher EC. Comparing the effects of tidal volume, driving pressure, and mechanical power on mortality in trials of lung-protective mechanical ventilation. Respir Care 66: 221–227, 2021. doi:10.4187/respcare.07876.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 14. Weber J, Schmidt J, Straka L, Wirth S, Schumann S. Flow-controlled ventilation improves gas exchange in lung-healthy patients- a randomized interventional crossover study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 64: 481–488, 2020. doi:10.1111/aas.13526.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 15. Marini JJ, Crooke PS, Gattinoni L. Intra-cycle power: is the flow profile a neglected component of lung protection? Intensive Care Med 47: 609–611, 2021. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06375-5.
    Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar
  • 16. Abram J, Spraider P, Wagner J, Mathis S, Ranalter M, Putzer G, Hell T, Barnes T, Enk D, Martini J. Short time effects of compliance guided flow-controlled ventilation versus standard of care pressure-controlled ventilation - a prospective porcine trial. Minerva Anestesiol. In press. doi:10.23736/S0375-9393.23.16949-5.
    Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar
  • 17. Abram J, Martini J, Spraider P, Putzer G, Ranalter M, Wagner J, Glodny B, Hell T, Barnes T, Enk D. Individualised flow-controlled versus pressure-controlled ventilation in a porcine oleic acid-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome model. Eur J Anaesthesiol. In press. doi:10.1097/EJA.0000000000001807.
    Crossref | Google Scholar
  • 18. Percie Du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Würbel H. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. BMJ Open Sci 4: e100115 , 2020. doi:10.1136/bmjos-2020-100115.
    Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar
Previous
Back to Top
Next
Download PDF