Journal of Isfahan Medical School

Journal of Isfahan Medical School

Comparison of Two Modes: “Pressure-Regulated Volume-Controlled” and “Adaptive Support Ventilation” in Intensive Care Units’ Patients

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors
Babak Alikiaii 1
Saeed Abbasi 1
Narges Khatib 2
Seyed Taghi Hashemi 3
Hossein Mahjobipoor 3
1 Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Resident, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
10.48305/jims.v40.i667.0231
Abstract
Background: Nowadays, the use of mechanical ventilation devices has a vital use in the treatment of patients hospitalized in intensive care units, while different modes of mechanical ventilation devices had different outcomes, thus this study aimed at comparing two modes of mechanical ventilation, that is the outcome of pressure regulated volume-controlled (PRVC) and Adaptive support ventilation (ASV) on hemodynamic changes and time taken to separate  the patient from the device in the intensive care unit.
Methods: This study is a single-blind randomized clinical trial conducted in Alzahra hospital during 2018-2019. The research population of the study included 74 patients admitted to the intensive care unit who were selected by convenience sample. The patients were ramdomly divided into two groups. The device parameters were adjusted on PRVC mode for the first group and ASV mode for the second group. The data were compared between two groups using. Data were analyzed using Chi-square tests, T-test, and repeated measures of ANOVA and ANCOVA.
Findings: There was no significant difference between the two groups at different intervals in terms of systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate, pH and HCO3, RAMSY score. The analysis of variance with repeated observations showed that both, the group and time had significant effects on SPO2 and PCO2. The average length of time connected to the mechanical ventilation device and the duration of hospitalization in the ASV group was significantly lower than the PRVC Group.
Conclusion: The ASV mode more than PRVC mode decreased the length of stay and need for ventilation of hospitalized patients in intensive care units.
Keywords
Intensive care units
Mechanical ventilation
Artificial respiration
Ventilation mode
Hemodynamics
  1. Núñez SA, Roveda G, Zárate MS, Emmerich M, Verón MT. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation: description, risk factors for mortality, and performance of the SOFA score. J Bras Pneumol 2021; 47(3): e20200569.
  2. Hickey S, Giwa A. Mechanical Ventilation. StatPearls 2021 Apr;19.
  3. Buiteman-Kruizinga LA, Mkadmi HE, Schultz MJ, Tangkau PL, van der Heiden PLJ. Comparison of mechanical power during adaptive support ventilation versus nonautomated pressure-controlled ventilation—a pilot study. Crit Care Explor 2021; 3(2): e0335.
  4. Kiaei BA, Moradi Farsani D, Ghadimi K, Shahali M. Evaluation of the relationship between serum sodium concentration and mortality rate in ICU patients with traumatic brain injury. Arch Neurol 2018; 5(3): e67845.
  5. Mireles-Cabodevila E, Diaz-Guzman E, Heresi GA, Chatburn RL. Alternative modes of mechanical ventilation: A review for the hospitalist. Cleve Clin J Med 2009; 76(7): 417-30.
  6. Branson RD, Johannigman JA. What is the evidence
    base for the newer ventilation modes? Respir Care 2004; 49(7): 742-60.
  7. Jaber S. New dual ventilator modes: are we ready to perform large clinical trials? Respiratory Care 2009; 54(11): 1451-2.
  8. Hasan A. Understanding mechanical ventilation: a practical handbook. 2nd Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2010. p. 988.
  9. Jaber S, Delay JM, Matecki S, Sebbane M, Eledjam JJ, Brochard L. Volume-guaranteed pressure-support ventilation facing acute changes in ventilatory demand. Intensive Care Med 2005; 31(9): 1181-8.
  10. Alvarez A, Subirana M, Benito S. Decelerating flow ventilation effects in acute respiratory failure. J Crit Care 1998; 13(1): 21-5.
  11. Jaber S, Sebbane M, Verzilli D, Matecki S, Wysocki M, Eledjam JJ, et al. Adaptive support and pressure support ventilation behavior in response to increased ventilatory demand. Anesthesiology 2009;110(3): 620-7.
  12. Aghadavoudi O, Alikiaii B, Sadeghi F. Comparison of respiratory and hemodynamic stability in patients with traumatic brain injury ventilated by two ventilator modes: Pressure regulated volume control versus synchronized intermittent mechanical ventilation. Adv Biomed Res 2016; 5: 175.
  13. Kiaei BA, Kashefi P, Hashemi ST, Moradi D, Mobasheri A. The comparison effects of two methods of (adaptive support ventilation minute ventilation: 110% and adaptive support ventilation minute ventilation: 120%) on mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic changes and length of being in recovery in intensive care units. Adv Biomed Res 2017; 6: 52.
  14. Abd El-RahmanAli A, Abd El-RazikEl Wahsh R, Abd El-SattarAgha M, Tawadroos BB. Pressure regulated volume controlled ventilation versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in COPD patients suffering from acute respiratory failure. Egypt J Chest Dis Tuberc 2016; 65(1): 121-5.
  15. Mahmoud K, Ammar A, Kasemy Z. Comparison between pressure-regulated volume-controlled and volume-controlled ventilation on oxygenation parameters, airway pressures, and immune modulation during thoracic surgery. J Cardiothoracic Vasc Anesth 2017; 31(5): 1760-6.
  16. Kirakli C, Ozdemir I, Ucar ZZ, Cimen P, Kepil S, Ozkan S. Adaptive support ventilation for faster weaning in COPD: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J 2011; 38(4): 774-80.
  17. Moradian ST, Saeid Y, Ebadi A, Hemmat A, Ghiasi MS. Adaptive support ventilation reduces the incidence of atelectasis in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Pain Med 2017; 7(3): e44619
  18. Nair R, Bhandary NM, D’Souza AD. Initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score versus Simplified Acute Physiology score to analyze multiple organ dysfunction in infectious diseases in Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2016 Ap; 20(4): 210-5.
  19. Zhu F, Gomersall CD, Ng SK, Underwood MJ, Lee A. A randomized controlled trial of adaptive support ventilation mode to wean patients after fast-track cardiac valvular surgery. Anesthesiology 2015; 122(4): 832-40.
  20. Rose L, Ed A. Advanced modes of mechanical ventilation: implications for practice. AACN Adv Crit Care 2006; 17(2): 145-58.
  21. Abutbul A, Sviri S, Zbedat V, Linton DM, van Heerden PV. A prospective comparison of the efficacy and safety of fully closed-loop control ventilation (Intellivent-ASV) with conventional ASV and SIMV modes. South Afr J Crit Care 2014; 30(1): 28-32.
  22. Ghodrati MR, Pournajafian AR, Khatibi A, Niakan M, Hemadi MH, Zamani MM. Comparing the effect of adaptive support ventilation (ASV) and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) on respiratory parameters in neurosurgical ICU patients. Anesth Pain Med 2016; 6(6): e40368.
  23. Briassoulis G, Michaeloudi E, Fitrolaki DM, Spanaki AM, Briassouli E. Influence of different ventilator modes on VO2 and VCO2 measurements using a compact metabolic monitor. Nutrition 2009; 25(11-12): 1106-14.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 40, Issue 667
3rd Week, June
May and June 2022
Pages 231-239

  • Receive Date 08 March 2022
  • Revise Date 22 June 2022
  • Accept Date 14 June 2022