Search

Abstract Background The physiological dead space is a strong indicator of severity and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The “ideal” alveolar PCO2, in equilibrium with pulmonary capillary PCO2, is a central concept in the physiological dead space measurement. As it cannot be measured, it is surrogated by arterial PCO2 which, unfortunately, may be far higher than ideal alveolar PCO2, when the right-to-left venous admixture is present. The “ideal” alveolar PCO2 equals the end-tidal PCO2 (PETCO2) only in absence of alveolar dead space. Therefore, in the perfect gas exchanger (alveolar dead space = 0, venous admixture = 0), the PETCO2/PaCO2 is 1, as PETCO2, PACO2 and PaCO2 are equal. Our aim is to investigate if and at which extent the PETCO2/PaCO2, a comprehensive meter of the “gas exchanger” performance, is related to the anatomo physiological characteristics in ARDS. Results We retrospectively studied 200 patients with ARDS. The source was a database in which we collected since 2003 all the patients enrolled in different CT scan studies. The PETCO2/PaCO2, measured at 5 cmH2O airway pressure, significantly decreased from mild to mild–moderate moderate–severe and severe ARDS. The overall populations was divided into four groups (~ 50 patients each) according to the quartiles of the PETCO2/PaCO2 (lowest ratio, the worst = group 1, highest ratio, the best = group 4). The progressive increase PETCO2/PaCO2 from quartile 1 to 4 (i.e., the progressive approach to the “perfect” gas exchanger value of 1.0) was associated with a significant decrease of non-aerated tissue, inohomogeneity index and increase of well-aerated tissue. The respiratory system elastance significantly improved from quartile 1 to 4, as well as the PaO2/FiO2 and PaCO2. The improvement of PETCO2/PaCO2 was also associated with a significant decrease of physiological dead space and venous admixture. When PEEP was increased from 5 to 15 cmH2O, the greatest improvement of non-aerated tissue, PaO2 and venous admixture were observed in quartile 1 of PETCO2/PaCO2 and the worst deterioration of dead space in quartile 4. Conclusion The ratio PETCO2/PaCO2 is highly correlated with CT scan, physiological and clinical variables. It appears as an excellent measure of the overall “gas exchanger” status.

Abstract Background Mechanical power is a summary variable including all the components which can possibly cause VILI (pressures, volume, flow, respiratory rate). Since the complexity of its mathematical computation is one of the major factors that delay its clinical use, we propose here a simple and easy to remember equation to estimate mechanical power under volume-controlled ventilation: Mechanical Power=VE×Peak Pressure+PEEP+F/620 $$ \mathrm{Mechanical}\ \mathrm{Power}=\frac{\mathrm{VE}\times \left(\mathrm{Peak}\ \mathrm{Pressure}+\mathrm{PEEP}+F/6\right)}{20} $$ where the mechanical power is expressed in Joules/minute, the minute ventilation (VE) in liters/minute, the inspiratory flow (F) in liters/minute, and peak pressure and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in centimeter of water. All the components of this equation are continuously displayed by any ventilator under volume-controlled ventilation without the need for clinician intervention. To test the accuracy of this new equation, we compared it with the reference formula of mechanical power that we proposed for volume-controlled ventilation in the past. The comparisons were made in a cohort of mechanically ventilated pigs (485 observations) and in a cohort of ICU patients (265 observations). Results Both in pigs and in ICU patients, the correlation between our equation and the reference one was close to the identity. Indeed, the R 2 ranged from 0.97 to 0.99 and the Bland-Altman showed small biases (ranging from + 0.35 to − 0.53 J/min) and proportional errors (ranging from + 0.02 to − 0.05). Conclusions Our new equation of mechanical power for volume-controlled ventilation represents a simple and accurate alternative to the more complex ones available to date. This equation does not need any clinical intervention on the ventilator (such as an inspiratory hold) and could be easily implemented in the software of any ventilator in volume-controlled mode. This would allow the clinician to have an estimation of mechanical power at a simple glance and thus increase the clinical consciousness of this variable which is still far from being used at the bedside. Our equation carries the same limitations of all other formulas of mechanical power, the most important of which, as far as it concerns VILI prevention, are the lack of normalization and its application to the whole respiratory system (including the chest wall) and not only to the lung parenchyma.