Comparing the Intellivent-ASV® Mode with Conventional Ventilation Modes during Weaning after Uncomplicated Cardiac Surgery

The objective: to compare efficacy and safety of Intellivent-ASV® with conventional ventilation modes during weaning in the patients after cardiac surgery.
Subjects and methods. In this randomized controlled trial, 40 adult patients were ventilated with conventional ventilation modes and 40 with Intellivent-ASV after uncomplicated cardiac surgery. Eight physicians were involved in the study.
Care of both groups was standardized, except for the modes of postoperative ventilation.
We compared:
- The physician’s workload, through accounting number of manual ventilator settings and time they spent near the ventilator in every group,
- Duration of tracheal intubation in ICU,
- Evaluation of ventilation safety by considering driving pressure, mechanical power, positive end expiratory pressure, and tidal volume level,
- The frequency of adverse events, postoperative complications, and lethality.
Results. There were significant differences in the duration of respiratory support in ICU: 226 ± 31 min (Intellivent Group) vs 271 ± 78 min (Control Group) (p = 0.0013).
In Intellivent Group, the number of manual ventilator settings and time spent by physicians near the ventilator before tracheal extubation were significantly lower: 0 vs 4 (2–6), and 35 (25–53) sec vs 164 ± 69 sec respectively (p < 0.001 in both cases).
Intellivent-ASV provided significantly more protective ventilation through reduction in the driving pressure, tidal volume, FiO₂ and PEEP levels but no difference was noted between paO2/FiO2 ratio. ∆P and Vt were significantly lower in Intellivent Group – ∆P on mechanical ventilation was 6 (5–7) cm H2O vs 7.25 (6.5–9.5) cm H₂O (p < 0.001); Vt on mechanical ventilation was 6 (5.2–7) vs 7 (6–9.5) ml/kg/PBW (p = 0.000003). PEEP and FiO₂ levels were also significantly lower in Intellivent Group, PEEP on mechanical ventilation was 5 (5–7.5) cm H₂O vs 7 (5–11.5) cm H2O and FiO₂ level was 26 (22–30) % vs 34 (30–40) %.
There were no significant differences between the groups in frequency of adverse events and duration of ICU and hospital stay.
Conclusion. Application of Intellivent-ASV mode after uncomplicated cardiac surgery provides more protective mechanical ventilation and reduces the physician’s workload without compromising the quality of respiratory support and safety of patients.

1. Аnaniev E.P., Polupan А.А., Matskovskiy I.V. et al. Use of IntelliVent-ASV regimen to maintain target EtCO2 range in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Voprosy Neyrokhirurgii, 2017, no. 5, pp. 63-68. (In Russ.) doi:10.17116/neiro201781563. https://doi.org/10.17116/neiro201781563

2. Kassil V.L., Eremenko А.А., Sapicheva Yu.Yu. et al. Intellektualnye metody IVL i VVL. V kn.: Printsipy mekhanicheskoy ventilyatsii legkikh v intensivnoy terapii. [Intelligent methods of mechanical ventilation and assisted respiration. In: Principles of mechanical ventilation in intensive care]. Moscow, MEDpress-Inform Publ., 2017, pp. 225-228. ISBN 978-5-00030-507-2.

3. Arnal J.M., Garnero A., Novonti D. et al. Feasibility study on full closed-loop control ventilation (IntelliVent-ASV) in ICU patients with acute respiratory failure: a prospective observational comparative study. Crit. Care, 2013, no. 17, R196 doi:10.1186/cc12890.

4. Arnal J.M., Garnero A., Novotni D. et al. Сlosed loop ventilation mode in Intensive Care Unit: a randomized controlled clinical trialcomparing the numbers of manual ventilator setting changes. Minerva Anestesiologica, 2018, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 58–67. doi:10.23736/S0375-9393.17.11963-2.

5. Arnal J.M., Saoli M., Garnero A. Airway and transpulmonary driving pressures and mechanical powers selected by INTELLiVENT-ASV in passive, mechanically ventilated icu patients. Heart Lung, 2020, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 427–434. doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2019.11.001.

6. Becher T., van der Staay M., Schädler D. et al. Calculation of mechanical power for pressure-controlled ventilation. Intens. Care Med., 2019, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 1321–1323. doi:10.1007/s00134-019-05636-8.

7. Beijers A.J., Roos A.N., Bindels A.J. Fully automated closed-loop ventilation is safe and effective in post-cardiac surgery patients. Intens. Care Med., 2014, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 752–753. doi:10.1007/s00134-014-3234-7.

8. Belliato M. Automated weaning from mechanical ventilation. World J. Respirology, 2016, vol. 28, no. 6 (2), pp. 49-53. doi:10.5320/wjr.v6.i2.49.

9. Bialais E., Wittebole X., Vignaux L. et al. Closed-loop ventilation mode (IntelliVent®-ASV) in intensive care unit: a randomized trial. Minerva Anestesiol., 2016, vol. 82, pp. 657-668. PMID 26957117.

10. Chatburn R.L., Mireles-Cabodevila E. Closed-loop control of mechanical ventilation: description and classification of targeting schemes. Respirat. Care, 2011, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 85–102. doi:10.4187/respcare.00967.

11. Dabbagh A., Esmailian F., Aranki S. Postoperative critical care for adult cardiac surgical patients Second Edition Cham. Springer Intern., Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018. 672 p. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-75747-6.

12. Fot E.V., Izotova N.N., Yudina A.S. Automated weaning from mechanical ventilation after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Front Med. (Lausanne), 2017, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1–7. doi:10.3389/fmed.2017.00031. eCollection 2017.

13. Gregory A.J., Engelman D.T, Williams J.B. et al. Cardiac Surgery ERAS p 488. In book O. Ljungqvist, N.K. Francis, R.D. Urman Enhanced Recovery After Surgery A Complete Guide to Optimizing Outcomes, Cham; Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33443-7.

14. Lellouche F., Bouchard P.A., Simard S. et al. Evaluation of fully automated ventilation: a randomized controlled study in post-cardiac surgery patients. Intens. Care Med., 2013, vol. 3, pp. 463–471. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2799-2.

15. MacIntyre N.R., Cook D.J., Ely E.W.Jr. et al. Evidence-based guidelines for weaning and discontinuing ventilatory support: a collective task force facilitated by the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Association for Respiratory Care, and the American College of Critical Care Medicine. Chest, 2001, vol. 120, (6 suppl.), pp. 375S–395S. doi:10.1378/chest.120.6_suppl.375S.

16. Mead J., Turner J.M., Macklem P.T. et al. Significance of the relationship between lung recoil and maximum expiratory flow. J. Appl. Physiol., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 95–108. doi:10.1152/jappl.1967.22.1.95.

17. Otis A.B., Fenn W.O., Rahn H. Mechanics of breathing in man. J. Appl. Physiol., 1950, no. 2, pp. 592–607. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1950.2.11.592.

18. Pannu S.R., Dziadzko M.A., Gajic O. How much oxygen? Oxygen titration goals during mechanical ventilation. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 2016, vol. 193, pp. 4–5. doi:10.1164/rccm.201509-1810ED.

19. Panwar R., Hardie M., Bellomo R. et al. Conservative versus liberal oxygenation targets for mechanically ventilated patients. A pilot multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 2016, vol. 193, pp. 43–51. doi:10.1164/rccm.201505-1019OC.

20. Putensen C., Muders T., Varelmann D. et al. The impact of spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 2006, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 13–18. doi: 10.1097/01.ccx.0000198994.37319.60.

21. Serpa Neto A, Simonis F.D., Schultz M.J. How to ventilate patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome? Curr. Opin. Crit. Care, 2015, no. 21, pp. 65‒73. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000165.

22. Silva P.L., Macedo Rocco P.R., Pelosi P. Ten reasons to use mechanical power to guide ventilator settings in patients without ARDS In book: Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. 2020, pp. 37‒50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37323-8_3.