Patient-triggered ventilation in neonates

Comparison of a flow-and an impedance-triggered system

Helmut D. Hummler, Tilo Gerhardt, Alvaro Gonzalez, Juan Bolivar, Nelson R Claure, Ruth Everett-Thomas, Eduardo Bancalari

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We conducted a study with the objective of comparing the performance of two different systems for patient-triggered ventilation in neonates (impedance versus flow/volume-triggered) by measuring response time, autotrigger and trigger failure rates, ventilation, and gas exchange. The two ventilator systems were applied in random order in 10 preterm neonates (median gestational age: 30.5 wk; range: 27 to 34 wk; body weight: 1,266 g; range: 840 to 2,240 g) using identical ventilator settings. The median (range) response time was 169 (98 to 305) ms for the impedance system and 115 (79 to 184) ms for the flow/volume system (p < 0.01). The longer and more variable response time of the impedance system was secondary to a phase lag of the impedance signal caused by chest wall distortion. Although 13.1 (0.2 to 29.4)% of mechanical breaths were autotriggered with the impedance system, there were no autotriggered breaths using the flow/volume system (p < 0.01). The rate of trigger failures was not significantly different with the two systems, at 1.2 (0 to 4.4)% (impedance) versus 3.1 (0 to 6.4)% (flow/volume). Minute ventilation was smaller with the impedance system (p < 0.001), because of the larger number of breaths triggered late in inspiration or during expiration. We conclude that the flow/volume-triggered system is less prone to autotriggering and has a shorter and more consistent response time than the impedance-triggered system. The impedance-triggered system is more susceptible to artifacts and chest wall distortion.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1049-1054
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Volume154
Issue number4 I
StatePublished - Oct 29 1996

Fingerprint

Electric Impedance
Ventilation
Newborn Infant
Reaction Time
Thoracic Wall
Mechanical Ventilators
Artifacts
Gestational Age
Gases
Body Weight

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Patient-triggered ventilation in neonates : Comparison of a flow-and an impedance-triggered system. / Hummler, Helmut D.; Gerhardt, Tilo; Gonzalez, Alvaro; Bolivar, Juan; Claure, Nelson R; Everett-Thomas, Ruth; Bancalari, Eduardo.

In: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 154, No. 4 I, 29.10.1996, p. 1049-1054.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{00725e891a094f56b6b0bc56874eda3a,
title = "Patient-triggered ventilation in neonates: Comparison of a flow-and an impedance-triggered system",
abstract = "We conducted a study with the objective of comparing the performance of two different systems for patient-triggered ventilation in neonates (impedance versus flow/volume-triggered) by measuring response time, autotrigger and trigger failure rates, ventilation, and gas exchange. The two ventilator systems were applied in random order in 10 preterm neonates (median gestational age: 30.5 wk; range: 27 to 34 wk; body weight: 1,266 g; range: 840 to 2,240 g) using identical ventilator settings. The median (range) response time was 169 (98 to 305) ms for the impedance system and 115 (79 to 184) ms for the flow/volume system (p < 0.01). The longer and more variable response time of the impedance system was secondary to a phase lag of the impedance signal caused by chest wall distortion. Although 13.1 (0.2 to 29.4){\%} of mechanical breaths were autotriggered with the impedance system, there were no autotriggered breaths using the flow/volume system (p < 0.01). The rate of trigger failures was not significantly different with the two systems, at 1.2 (0 to 4.4){\%} (impedance) versus 3.1 (0 to 6.4){\%} (flow/volume). Minute ventilation was smaller with the impedance system (p < 0.001), because of the larger number of breaths triggered late in inspiration or during expiration. We conclude that the flow/volume-triggered system is less prone to autotriggering and has a shorter and more consistent response time than the impedance-triggered system. The impedance-triggered system is more susceptible to artifacts and chest wall distortion.",
author = "Hummler, {Helmut D.} and Tilo Gerhardt and Alvaro Gonzalez and Juan Bolivar and Claure, {Nelson R} and Ruth Everett-Thomas and Eduardo Bancalari",
year = "1996",
month = "10",
day = "29",
language = "English",
volume = "154",
pages = "1049--1054",
journal = "American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "1073-449X",
publisher = "American Thoracic Society",
number = "4 I",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient-triggered ventilation in neonates

T2 - Comparison of a flow-and an impedance-triggered system

AU - Hummler, Helmut D.

AU - Gerhardt, Tilo

AU - Gonzalez, Alvaro

AU - Bolivar, Juan

AU - Claure, Nelson R

AU - Everett-Thomas, Ruth

AU - Bancalari, Eduardo

PY - 1996/10/29

Y1 - 1996/10/29

N2 - We conducted a study with the objective of comparing the performance of two different systems for patient-triggered ventilation in neonates (impedance versus flow/volume-triggered) by measuring response time, autotrigger and trigger failure rates, ventilation, and gas exchange. The two ventilator systems were applied in random order in 10 preterm neonates (median gestational age: 30.5 wk; range: 27 to 34 wk; body weight: 1,266 g; range: 840 to 2,240 g) using identical ventilator settings. The median (range) response time was 169 (98 to 305) ms for the impedance system and 115 (79 to 184) ms for the flow/volume system (p < 0.01). The longer and more variable response time of the impedance system was secondary to a phase lag of the impedance signal caused by chest wall distortion. Although 13.1 (0.2 to 29.4)% of mechanical breaths were autotriggered with the impedance system, there were no autotriggered breaths using the flow/volume system (p < 0.01). The rate of trigger failures was not significantly different with the two systems, at 1.2 (0 to 4.4)% (impedance) versus 3.1 (0 to 6.4)% (flow/volume). Minute ventilation was smaller with the impedance system (p < 0.001), because of the larger number of breaths triggered late in inspiration or during expiration. We conclude that the flow/volume-triggered system is less prone to autotriggering and has a shorter and more consistent response time than the impedance-triggered system. The impedance-triggered system is more susceptible to artifacts and chest wall distortion.

AB - We conducted a study with the objective of comparing the performance of two different systems for patient-triggered ventilation in neonates (impedance versus flow/volume-triggered) by measuring response time, autotrigger and trigger failure rates, ventilation, and gas exchange. The two ventilator systems were applied in random order in 10 preterm neonates (median gestational age: 30.5 wk; range: 27 to 34 wk; body weight: 1,266 g; range: 840 to 2,240 g) using identical ventilator settings. The median (range) response time was 169 (98 to 305) ms for the impedance system and 115 (79 to 184) ms for the flow/volume system (p < 0.01). The longer and more variable response time of the impedance system was secondary to a phase lag of the impedance signal caused by chest wall distortion. Although 13.1 (0.2 to 29.4)% of mechanical breaths were autotriggered with the impedance system, there were no autotriggered breaths using the flow/volume system (p < 0.01). The rate of trigger failures was not significantly different with the two systems, at 1.2 (0 to 4.4)% (impedance) versus 3.1 (0 to 6.4)% (flow/volume). Minute ventilation was smaller with the impedance system (p < 0.001), because of the larger number of breaths triggered late in inspiration or during expiration. We conclude that the flow/volume-triggered system is less prone to autotriggering and has a shorter and more consistent response time than the impedance-triggered system. The impedance-triggered system is more susceptible to artifacts and chest wall distortion.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029958326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029958326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 154

SP - 1049

EP - 1054

JO - American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

JF - American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

SN - 1073-449X

IS - 4 I

ER -