Key result
Triggered PSV breaths collapse the IVC in 85% of observations, partly driven by respiratory effort.
Why the study?
Interpretation of IVC dynamics during triggered breaths under assisted ventilation remains challenging.
Do different levels of pressure support and PEEP affect inferior vena cava dynamics during triggered breaths in critically ill patients undergoing weaning from mechanical ventilation?
RCT (n=60)
Crossover
Do different levels of pressure support and PEEP affect inferior vena cava dynamics during triggered breaths in critically ill patients undergoing weaning from mechanical ventilation?
During pressure support ventilation, IVC collapsibility is heavily influenced by respiratory effort and ventilator-patient interaction, suggesting it should be interpreted with caution when assessing fluid responsiveness.
Highlights the confounding effect of respiratory effort on IVC dynamics during assisted ventilation; leaves open.
Inferior vena cava (IVC) distensibility is widely used to assess fluid responsiveness (FR) during passive positive pressure ventilation. However, interpretation of IVC dynamics during triggered breaths under assisted ventilation remains challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different pressure support ventilation (PSV) and positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels on IVC dynamics during triggered breaths. This randomized crossover physiologic study included critically ill patients undergoing weaning from mechanical ventilation. Participants were exposed to four randomized sets of 12 PSV conditions combining different levels of pressure support (PS) and PEEP.IVC behavior during inspiration was assessed using ultrasound. The IVC collapsibility index (cIVC) and distensibility index (dIVC) were calculated. Respiratory effort was assessed using airway occlusion pressure at 100 milliseconds (P0.1). Sixty ICU patients were included. Inspiratory IVC collapse occurred in 85% of observations, particularly at lower PS/PEEP levels, whereas IVC distension predominated at higher settings. Among observations with IVC collapse, cIVC values were highest at lower PS/PEEP levels. Each 1-cmH2O increase in P0.1 was associated with an approximately 3.5%-point increase in cIVC, and mediation analysis showed that P0.1 accounted for nearly 40% of the association between PS settings and cIVC (38.5% [95% CI 19.2 to 57.7]). During PSV, inspiratory IVC collapse is common. The use of cIVC during patient-triggered breaths primarily reflects ventilator-patient interaction rather than preload alone and should be interpreted with caution. Future studies should account for respiratory effort when using cIVC to access FR under assisted ventilation. • IVC collapse is common during triggered breaths under pressure support ventilation. • Lower pressure support and PEEP increase the magnitude of IVC collapsibility. • Respiratory effort influences IVC collapsibility during assisted ventilation. • IVC dynamics during triggered breaths reflect ventilator–patient interaction. • Caution is required when using IVC indices under triggered breaths.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Visanumahimachai et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Critically ill patients undergoing weaning from mechanical ventilation (n=60). Different levels of pressure support (PS) and PEEP vs. Crossover to other PS/PEEP levels was evaluated on IVC dynamics (cIVC and dIVC) during triggered breaths (38.5% mediation, 95% CI 19.2 to 57.7). Inspiratory inferior vena cava collapse occurred in 85% of observations during triggered breaths, with respiratory effort accounting for 38.5% (95% CI 19.2-57.7) of the effect of pressure support.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: