Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We have designed a computerized system providing closed-loop control of the level of pressure support ventilation (PSV). The system sets itself at the lowest level of PSV that maintains respiratory rate (RR), tidal volume (VT), and end-tidal CO(2) pressure (PET(CO(2))) within predetermined ranges defining acceptable ventilation (i.e., 12 < RR < 28 cycles/min, VT > 300 ml [> 250 if weight < 55 kg], and PET(CO(2)) < 55 mm Hg [< 65 mm Hg if chronic CO(2) retention]). Ten patients received computer-controlled (automatic) PSV and physician-controlled (standard) PSV, in random order, during 24 h for each mode. An estimation of occlusion pressure (P(0.1)) was recorded continuously. The average time spent with acceptable ventilation as previously defined was 66 +/- 24% of the total ventilation time with standard PSV versus 93 +/- 8% with automatic PSV (p < 0.05), whereas the level of PSV was similar during the two periods (17 +/- 4 cm H(2)O versus 19 +/- 6 cm H(2)O). The time spent with an estimated P(0.1) above 4 cm H(2)O was 34 +/- 35% of the standard PSV time versus only 11 +/- 17% of the automatic PSV time (p < 0.01). Automatic PSV increased the time spent within desired ventilation parameter ranges and apparently reduced periods of excessive workload.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dojat et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: