Adaptive Support Ventilation Versus Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation With Pressure Support in Weaning Patients After Orthotopic Liver Transplantation

• Published in: Transplantation proceedings Vol. 46; no. 7; pp. 2272 - 2278
• Main Authors: Celli, P, Privato, E, Ianni, S, Babetto, C, D’Arena, C, Guglielmo, N, Maldarelli, F, Paglialunga, G, Rossi, M, Berloco, P.B, Ruberto, F, Pugliese, F
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.09.2014
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Liver Transplantation; Male; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment (Health Care); Positive-Pressure Respiration - methods; Postoperative Care - methods; Respiration, Artificial - methods; Surgery; Transplantation, Homologous; Ventilator Weaning - methods
• ISSN: 0041-1345; 1873-2623
• DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2014.06.046

Abstract Background The extubation phase is an extremely critical moment in patients who have undergone orthotopic liver transplantation, who do not always have the advantage of long-lasting positive-pressure ventilation and positive expiratory end pressure; these factors can lead to splanchnic venous congestion, and this is why a rapid extubation can represent a great benefit for the graft. Methods The aim of this study was to compare the adaptive support ventilation (ASV) mode with the standard mode of weaning in our intensive care unit, synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with pressure support (P-SIMV), in patients who received orthotopic liver transplantation. ASV is a positive-pressure mode, in which pressure level and respiratory rate are automatically adjusted according to measured lung dynamics at each breath. Eligible patients were assigned to either ASV or P-SIMV group. The weaning protocol was based on the individual respiratory activity and structured in 4 different phases. Results The average length of intubation was significantly shorter in the ASV group than in the P-SIMV group (90 ± 13 vs 153 ± 22 minutes, P  = .05). The total modifications to the ventilator settings were significantly larger in the P-SIMV group (1.5 ± 1 vs 6 ± 2; P  = .003). Conclusions Our results suggest that although both procedures are safe and easy to apply, ASV is superior in terms of weaning times, and it simplifies respiratory management. The better patient-machine interaction in ASV has been highlighted by other authors for different clusters of patients.