Negative Inspiratory Pressure as a Predictor of Weaning Mechanical Ventilation-Juniper Publishers
Juniper Publishers-Journal of Anesthesia
Introduction
Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a widely used resource
 within intensive care units (ICUs) for the maintenance of the lives of 
critically ill patients. However, its prolongation is associated with 
several complications, such as pneumonia, hemodynamic disorders, lung 
injury and diaphragmatic dysfunction; the latter defined as the set of 
structural and functional alterations produced by the inactivity of the 
diaphragm muscle during MV [1,2].
Several investigations developed since the 1990s on 
the impact of MV have been able to show changes in the diaphragm as a 
consequence of the prolonged use of positive pressure in the airway [2-5].
 These changes reduce and modify the correct diaphragmatic functioning, 
making the weaning process more complicated and delayed due to the 
difficulty for the patient to spontaneously assume ventilatory work [2,3]. This translates into an increase in the number of hospital stay days, and consequently, costs in health services [6,7].
For all of the above, early ventilatory weaning is 
established as one of the main objectives in the management of the 
critical patient and its initiation should be considered from the moment
 the cause of the use of ventilatory support improves [8].
 The success of weaning is defined as the maintenance of spontaneous 
breathing for at least 48 hours after discontinuation of MV. If the need
 to return to artificial ventilation arises during this period, it may 
be thought that weaning has failed [9]. It is considered that approximately 55% of the patients manage to pass this process without difficulties [10];
 However, between 20 and 30% of the patients who are weaned from the 
ventilator present respiratory complications after extubation, requiring
 the reinstatement of the artificial airway [11].
Weaning failure can be due to several factors, 
summarized in four groups: alterations in gas exchange, hemodynamic 
instability, respiratory pump failure and psychological dependence on 
the ventilator [12].
 This fact occurs in many cases because weaning is based on clinical 
judgments and individualized styles, behaviors that favor the 
prolongation of MV time [13].
 Herein lies the importance of establishing a protocol of weaning and 
extubation systematically, integrally and preferably universal within 
the ICUs.
However, most of these criteria are not always 
statistically reliable because they present low sensitivity and 
specificity, and may give rise to the appearance of false positives and 
false negatives. In summary, precise parameters included within the 
weaning protocol do not always exist to predict the success or failure 
of weaning and extubation [11].
One of the predictors that has been contemplated in 
recent years to estimate the success of weaning is the maximum 
inspiratory pressure, commonly known as PIM, defined as maximum pressure
 that can be generated against an occluded airway for 20 seconds from 
the capacity Functional residual; In this sense, can be considered as a 
direct marker of inspiratory muscle function, and in particular, of 
diaphragmatic force [14].
The first time we talked about IMP measurement in 
critically ventilated patients was in 1973, when Sahn and Cols.la 
included within the extubation criteria, along with the value of minute 
ventilation and maximum voluntary ventilation. The research concluded 
that patients with values >30cm H20 are able to maintain their 
mechanical ventilation spontaneously [15]. On the other hand, in 1975 Feeley et al. [16] reported that the inspiratory force should be ≥20cm H20 to interrupt assisted ventilation.
In 1993, Strickland and Hasson developed an automatic
 weaning stool system for postoperative patients. Within the inclusion 
criteria to begin weaning, they added the Negative Inspiratory Force 
(NIF) denomination that until then had not been handled to refer to 
maximal inspiratory pressure [17].
Yang and Tobin performed a prospective study where 
they established the predictive indexes of the results of ventilatory 
weaning, taking NIF as one of them. In their research, they determined 
that inspiratory pressure is a better predictor of failure than of 
weaning success [18]. In contrast, Ebeid and Cols. Deduced in 2013 that NIF is a good predictor of weaning success [19].
It has been established that a NIF ≥-20 or -25cm H2O 
is adequate to initiate ventilatory weaning; With a NIF>-30cm H2O, 
there is a 93% chance of successful weaning [20,21],
 and on the contrary, with a NIF of >-15 or >-10cm H2O, patients 
are unable to breathe on their own (twenty-one). Parallel to this, 
values of -33cm H20 with a 50% mortality decrease -28cm H20 with 42% and
 -26cm H20 with 32% respectively have been associated [22].
Recently, we conducted a study with Colombian 
population, considering the measurement of NIF as a parameter of 
evaluation of diaphragmatic dysfunction in MV, which is being submitted 
for publication, considering that its use in patients submitted to MV is
 possible thanks to its Incorporation into state-of-the- art mechanical 
fans. The measurement is done by an invasive technique, simple and well 
tolerated by the patients. Thus, the value of NIF is presented as an 
effective alternative to take into consideration, both to assess the 
degree of diaphragmatic injury, to initiate weaning and to perform 
extubation.
Although NIF seems to be the most adequate measure to
 quantify the degree of pulmonary dysfunction in patients with 
ventilatory support, depending on the probability of success or failure 
of weaning, the information that can be found on its application within 
critical care remains limited and discordant, Which makes it necessary 
to carry out more research in which NIF is considered as a parameter of 
evaluation for respiratory dysfunction within a structured battery or as
 a potential extubation criterion.
For more articles in Journal of Anesthesia
& Intensive Care Medicine please click on:
https://juniperpublishers.com/jaicm/index.php
https://juniperpublishers.com/jaicm/index.php
Comments
Post a Comment