Peak airway pressure increase is a late warning sign of partial endotracheal tube obstruction whereas change in expiratory flow is an early warning sign.
If peak inspiratory airway pressure (Ppeak) is used to monitor airway patency, progressive obstruction of the endotracheal tube (ETT) resulting from secretions can go undetected for a prolonged period. The reason is that any increase in Ppeak depends not only on the degree of narrowing but also on the inspiratory flow () rate. Although the impact of narrowing on low inspiratory is small, its decelerating effect on the high expiratory is pronounced and, hence, easily detectable. Dividing the volume-flow curve of a passive expiration into five consecutive segments (slices) and calculating the time constants (tau(Epsilon)) of these slices allows for analyzing whether and how expiratory is impeded by a partial obstruction. In nine piglets, during volume-controlled ventilation, three grades of ETT obstruction were created with an external clamp. In all animals the tau(E) increased with ETT obstruction (mean for the first slice: 550 ms with unobstructed ETT; grade 1: 661; grade 2: 877; and grade 3: 1563 ms, respectively) and this increase was significant with grade 2 and 3 obstruction. Ppeak, by contrast, did not increase significantly (base: 13, grade 1: 14, grade 2: 15 cm H(2)O) until the most severe (grade 3: 20 cm H(2)O) obstruction was created. We conclude that partial obstruction of the ETT can be reliably monitored with the expiratory V signal and has the potential of monitoring ETT narrowing in ventilator-dependent patients independent of the inspiratory pattern applied.
Kawati
Rafael
R
From the Departments of *Surgical, and †Medical Sciences, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden, ‡Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, University Hospital Freiburg, Germany, §Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Lattuada
Marco
M
Sjöstrand
Ulf
U
Guttmann
Josef
J
Hedenstierna
Göran
G
Helmer
Alois
A
Lichtwarck-Aschoff
Michael
M
D000403:Airway Resistance; D000818:Animals; D005260:Female; D007442:Intubation, Intratracheal / Q000009:adverse effects*; D008297:Male; D011312:Pressure; D015656:Respiratory Mechanics; D013552:Swine
Shah C, Kollef MH. Endotracheal tube intraluminal volume loss among mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care Med 2004;32:120–5.
Guttmann J, Eberhard L, Haberthur C, et al. Detection of endotracheal tube obstruction by analysis of the expiratory flow signal. Intensive Care Med 1998;24:1163–72.
Guttmann J, Eberhard L, Fabry B, et al. Time constant/volume relationship of passive expiration in mechanically ventilated ARDS patients. Eur Respir J 1995;8:114–20.
Pepe PE, Marini JJ. Occult positive end-expiratory pressure in mechanically ventilated patients with airflow obstruction: The auto-PEEP effect. Am Rev Respir Dis 1982;126:166–70.
Eissa NT, Ranieri VM, Corbeil C, et al. Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure, lung volume, and inspiratory flow on interrupter resistance in patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991;144:538–43.
Milic-Emili J, Robatto FM, Bates JH. Respiratory mechanics in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1990;65:4–12.
Guttmann J, Eberhard L, Fabry B, et al. Continuous calculation of intratracheal pressure in tracheally intubated patients. Anesthesiology 1993;79:503–13.
Lourens MS, Berg BV, Hoogsteden HC, Bogaard JM. Detection of flow limitation in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med 2001;27:1312–20.
Bolder PM, Healy TE, Bolder AR, et al. The extra work of breathing through adult endotracheal tubes. Anesth Analg 1986;65:853–9.
Wright PE, Marini JJ, Bernard GR. In vitro versus in vivo comparison of endotracheal tube airflow resistance. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989;140:10–6.
Hosking MP, Lennon RL, Warner MA, et al. Endotracheal tube obstruction: Recognition and management. Mil Med 1989;154:489–91.
Shapiro M, Wilson RK, Casar G, et al. Work of breathing through different sized endotracheal tubes. Crit Care Med 1986;14:1028–31.