0% found this document useful (0 votes)
44 views5 pages

ICU Physiology in 1000 Words: Driving Pressure & Stress Index

The document discusses driving pressure and stress in ICU physiology, explaining that the size of the functional lung is reduced in ARDS patients, known as the 'baby lung'. It analyzes driving pressure, which is the difference between end-inspiratory plateau pressure and PEEP, as a measure of stress on the lung. However, driving pressure does not account for chest wall compliance and transpulmonary pressure is a better indicator of true lung stress.

Uploaded by

aniket mittal
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
44 views5 pages

ICU Physiology in 1000 Words: Driving Pressure & Stress Index

The document discusses driving pressure and stress in ICU physiology, explaining that the size of the functional lung is reduced in ARDS patients, known as the 'baby lung'. It analyzes driving pressure, which is the difference between end-inspiratory plateau pressure and PEEP, as a measure of stress on the lung. However, driving pressure does not account for chest wall compliance and transpulmonary pressure is a better indicator of true lung stress.

Uploaded by

aniket mittal
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

ICU Physiology in 1000 Words: Driving Pressure & Stress

Index
Review Articles, ARDS and ALI, Critical Care, Mechanical Ventilation 1 Comment

Feb 132016

By Jon-Emile S. Kenny [@heart_lung]

The problem with the lung in the acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS] is not that it is
stif f , but rather, that it is small [1]. In the 1980s, CT scans of the lungs of patients with
ARDS revealed that the f unctional lung was attenuated in size and that dependent densities
f ormed [2]. These images led to the notion of the ‘baby lung’ as the size of aerated lung in
ARDS patients approximated the size of a child’s lung. Appropriately, the degree of
dependent consolidation correlates with shunt f raction, degree of hypoxemia and pulmonary
hypertension [3]. However, in any given patient, it is dif f icult to predict the exact size of
the ‘baby lung.’ Regardless, the af orementioned physiology provides strong rationale f or
the notion of smaller tidal volume or ‘lung protective’ ventilation. The larger the mismatch
between the size of the ventilator-delivered volume and the size of the ‘baby lung,’ the
larger the dif f erence in airway pressure. As somewhat of an analogy, consider two balloons
comprised of the same elastic material [i.e. their specif ic elastances are equivalent], but one
has a capacity of 100 mL and the other a capacity of 500 mL. Delivery of a 500 mL breath
to each of these balloons will result in a dif f erent stress across the balloon [i.e. the
distending pressure] and dif f erent strain [i.e. the increase in balloon volume relative to its
resting size]. In the intubated patient [free of respiratory effort], this physiology is
represented by a calculated dif f erence in respiratory system compliance [Crs]; that is, f or a
given change in thoracic [lung and chest wall] volume, there is a dif f erence in measured
airway pressure.

Given the above, a complex statistical analysis of previously published randomized


controlled trials on tidal volume [Vt] limitation and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP]
in ARDS patients was undertaken [4]. The authors hypothesized that the change in airway
pressure in response to a volume-limited ventilator-delivered breath would be the best
physiological surrogate f or assessing the stress and strain of the ‘baby lung.’ The driving

pressure [ΔP] is equal to [equation 1]:

The driving pressure is equal to the end-inspiratory plateau pressure [Pplat] minus the
positive end expiratory pressure [PEEP], such that [equation 2]:

Contemplating this equation can certainly cause some mathematical consternation because
it is conf using as to what the independent [clinician-controlled] and dependent [system
output] variables are. For this, an illustration may prove f ruitf ul [diagram 1].
Diagram 1: ΔP = driving pressure, Paw = airway pressure, Pplat = plateau pressure, Crs =
respiratory system compliance, Vt = tidal volume

From diagram 1, it can be seen that there are two independent variables, the Vt [or ΔV] and
the PEEP as these are both selected by the clinician in a volume-limited mode of ventilation.
Consequently, the true dependent variable is the Pplat while the Crs is a derived variable
that f orms the slope of the ΔV/ΔP relationship.

The f irst complicating matter here is that changes in both Vt and PEEP by the clinician can
change the Crs [the slope of the line] – if a change in ventilator setting [e.g. an increase in
PEEP] results in over-distension, the slope of the Crs will bend down and rightwards
[diagram 2, curve A], while if there is recruitment, the slope of the Crs will bend up and
lef twards [diagram 2, curve B]. As Crs can co-vary, it may conf ound what a change in Pplat
[and theref ore ΔP] represents. This, in my opinion, may make it dif f icult to design a trial
that provides the clinician with a universal target value f or ΔP. Nevertheless, it can be
inf erred that if ΔP remains the same, or f alls, it likely represents a ‘baby lung’ that is not
overly stressed by a change in ventilator setting.

Diagram 2: Note, tidal volume [Vt] remains the same for both curve A and curve B

The second complicating matter here is that Crs ref lects the pressure dif f erence between
the alveolus and the atmosphere, that is, the distending pressure across the thorax. But
this does not represent the true stress on the lung which is the trans -pulmonary pressure
[Ptp] or the alveolar pressure minus the pleural pressure [2, 5]. Accordingly, a patient with
normal pulmonary compliance, but a very low chest wall compliance [e.g. obesity, extra -
pulmonary ARDS, ascites] will have a large ΔP [curve A above], but without a large stress
across the lung [6, 7]. This is important, because it is the stress and strain on the lung
which places the patient at risk f or lung injury and is also an important determinant of right
ventricular hemodynamics [2, 8]. This criticism was astutely raised in response to the
original paper with the suggestion of measuring esophageal pressure as a surrogate f or
pleural pressure [9]. The authors responded, somewhat anemically, with the f ollowing
“…the measurement of esophageal pressures would just reveal a f ixed elastic component
(chest wall), in series with lung elastance,” which lacks substance, because this is true f or
all patients who are passive with a mechanical ventilator. The question posed to the
authors is distinguishing how much of the chest wall elastance contributes to the calculated
airway pressure. The ef f ect of the chest wall on airway pressure can be clinically very
signif icant [10, 11].

One method f or qualitatively evaluating respiratory mechanics – which f lows f rom the
physiology above – is the stress index [12]. If examination of the terminal portion of the
pressure-time curve on the ventilator [again, in a volume-cycled mode of ventilation]
demonstrates curvature away from the pressure axis [which approximates curve B above]
there is said to be a stress index < 1 or tidal recruitment. By contrast, if the terminal
portion of the pressure-time curve bends towards the pressure axis on the ventilator, curve
A above is approximated, and represents tidal over -distension [stress index > 1]. Note that
on the ventilator, pressure is on the y-axis, not on the x-axis as above. Also on the
ventilator, time in on the x-axis rather than volume. The absolutely crucial point here is
that when measuring the stress index, flow must be constant [square wave delivery] as
when f low is constant, volume and time become linear analogs [13]. In other words, f low
must be constant so that def ormations of the pressure curve ref lects alteration in the elastic
properties of the lung rather than demonstrating changes in f low.
Diagram 3: cartoon of ventilator pressure-time waveform

For more inf ormation please watch the f ollowing lectures [1D, 1E, and 4D]

Ref erences:

1. Gattinoni, L., et al., The "baby lung" became an adult. Intensive Care Med, 2016.
2. Gattinoni, L. and A. Pesenti, The concept of "baby lung". Intensive Care Med, 2005.
31(6): p. 776-84.
3. Gattinoni, L., et al., Inflammatory pulmonary edema and positive end-expiratory
pressure: correlations between imaging and physiologic studies. J Thorac Imaging,
1988. 3(3): p. 59-64.
4. Amato, M.B., et al., Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress
syndrome. N Engl J Med, 2015. 372(8): p. 747-55.
5. Akoumianaki, E., et al., The application of esophageal pressure measurement in
patients with respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2014. 189(5): p. 520-
31.
6. Gattinoni, L., et al., Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by pulmonary and
extrapulmonary disease. Different syndromes? Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 1998.
158(1): p. 3-11.
7. Gattinoni, L., et al., Bench-to-bedside review: chest wall elastance in acute lung
injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Crit Care, 2004. 8(5): p. 350-5.
8. Jardin, F. and A. Vieillard-Baron, Right ventricular function and positive pressure
ventilation in clinical practice: from hemodynamic subsets to respirator settings.
Intensive Care Med, 2003. 29(9): p. 1426-34.
9. Costa, E.L., A.S. Slutsky, and M.B. Amato, Driving pressure as a key ventilation
variable. N Engl J Med, 2015. 372(21): p. 2072.
10. Talmor, D., et al., Mechanical ventilation guided by esophageal pressure in acute
lung injury. N Engl J Med, 2008. 359(20): p. 2095-104.
11. Brochard, L., Measurement of esophageal pressure at bedside: pros and cons. Curr
Opin Crit Care, 2014. 20(1): p. 39-46.
12. Grasso, S., et al., Airway pressure-time curve profile (stress index) detects tidal
recruitment/hyperinflation in experimental acute lung injury. Crit Care Med, 2004.
32(4): p. 1018-27.
13. Bekos, V. and J.J. Marini, Monitoring the mechanically ventilated patient. Crit Care
Clin, 2007. 23(3): p. 575-611.

You might also like