Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Top 10 Papers in 2020
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • Call for Abstracts 2021
    • 2020 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Portugûes
    • 国语

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Top 10 Papers in 2020
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • Call for Abstracts 2021
    • 2020 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Follow aarc on Twitter
  • Visit aarc on Facebook
EditorialEditorials

Mid-Frequency Ventilation: A Viable Option for Lung Protection?

John J Marini
Respiratory Care November 2014, 59 (11) 1808-1809; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.03687
John J Marini
Professor of Medicine University of Minnesota Minneapolis/St Paul, Minnesota
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Prevention of lung injury caused by mechanical ventilation has rightfully assumed high priority in the support of patients with acute lung injury. The pathophysiology of ventilator-induced lung injury is complex, with both mechanical stresses and diverse non-mechanical background factors (such as position, vascular flows, FIO2, and body temperature) determining the magnitude of its expression.1 Under predisposing background conditions, repeated overstretching of fully aerated alveoli and force amplification at the interface of closed and open tissues may result in release of inflammatory mediators, intolerable shearing stresses, vascular disruption, and small airway damage from incessant opening and closing of unstable lung units. The alveolar pressures that determine whether ventilator-induced lung injury will be caused or avoided include the maximum and minimum values encountered at the extremes of the tidal cycle (plateau pressure and total PEEP) and the difference between them, often designated as the driving pressure. Since the landmark ARDS Network study, which confirmed that lower tidal volumes (VT 6 mL/kg of ideal body weight) are associated with better outcomes than high ones (12 mL/kg of ideal body weight),2 there has been an understandable preoccupation with limiting the tidal excursions of pressure and volume so as to reduce the lungs' exposure to damaging tidal cycles. Some authors have pointed out the difficulty of identifying safe lower threshold limits for VT and plateau pressure in the setting of acute lung injury,3 which for any given patient might co-depend on the integrity of right ventricular function.4

In this issue of Respiratory Care, Mireles-Cabodevila and colleagues present experimental work demonstrating the feasibility of significantly reducing VT and excursions of tidal pressures by using ventilator frequencies higher than those customarily targeted.5 This method, previously described in conceptual fashion by these authors as mid-frequency ventilation (MFV),6 uses algorithm-adjusted pressure controlled ventilation over a frequency range of ∼50–70 breaths/min. Because alveolar pressure during pressure controlled ventilation rises and falls quasi-exponentially toward the airway pressure extremes of the tidal cycle,7 VT declines as progressively increasing frequency allows less time for alveolar pressures to build and fall to their fixed airway pressure targets. Lower VT means lower plateaus, higher total PEEP, and reduced driving pressure. What could be better than that?

Caution is advisable. As exemplified by the HIFI trial in neonates 25 years ago8 and by the more recently failed OSCILLATE trial of high-frequency oscillation in adults,9 limiting VT cannot alone assure better outcome. One of the more appealing explanations for the disappointing results of those clinical trials relates to the higher mean alveolar pressures and their hemodynamic consequences that higher frequencies entail. The afterload to the right ventricle, often dysfunctional in ARDS and pumping against high pulmonary vascular resistance,10 tends to increase with mean alveolar pressure. Furthermore, the efficiency of ventilation, expressed as the ratio of total minute ventilation to PaCO2, also suffers as the dead-space fraction inevitably rises with the small VT associated with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation due to a disproportionate concomitant rise in the series (anatomic) dead-space component. Whatever the mode, using higher cycling frequencies augments the intensity of exposure to any damaging tidal force (in the language of physics, the mechanical work delivered per unit time, or power increases). Finally, as frequency rises, intracycle repair time following overstretch is also abbreviated.11 In a nutshell, minute volume should not be ignored when the object is to reduce the risk of iatrogenic injury.

Similar issues regarding altered ventilatory efficiency and hemodynamics may well apply at the rates associated with MFV, which are closer to conventional range. The data of Mireles-Cabodevila and colleagues,5 collected in animals with mild lung injuries, raise some concerns. In comparison to conventional pressure controlled ventilation, the algorithm-optimized MFV VT was lower by ∼20%, whereas the MFV-optimized minute volume needed to maintain a similar PaCO2 was greater than the control by a much higher percentage. Heart rate also increased rather impressively during MFV, even though cardiac output and mean vascular pressures changed very little. The cause for this tachycardia is not evident; however, alveolar pressure during MFV was modestly higher due to the auto-PEEP generated at rapid frequencies. This pilot study of MFV, conducted in an anesthetized animal model of acute lung injury, is a convincing demonstration that such an approach is feasible for those specific experimental conditions and for the limited duration of observation. Its performance in other models, over longer periods of observation, and in more severely injured lungs cannot be assumed. As the authors point out, translation directly to clinical practice cannot be advised on the strength of sound theory and these data alone.

Should reducing tidal pressures and VT below current recommendations prove beneficial (and currently, that issue is still widely open), exploration of a higher frequency range with an approach like MFV would be one of several ways to implement the desired VT reduction. Acceptance of the hypercapnia attendant to reducing VT at conventional frequency would be another, and use of extracorporeal gas exchange a third.12 The nature and severity of the clinical problem would dictate the approach to be tried first, and as always, the patient's integrated cardiorespiratory response would decide its value.

Whether MFV is eventually deployed and proves its worth at the bedside, the work presented here by Mireles-Cabodevila and colleagues5 provides interesting preclinical data motivated by a strongly mechanistic rationale. It is precisely this type modeling and testing of a clinical problem, once so prevalent in the science of respiratory care, that tests our assumptions, helps develop a solid base for designing clinical studies, and provides insights for improving care delivery. Unfortunately, although such experiments in applied physiology are still much needed, they are rapidly vanishing from our nation's funded research agenda.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: John J Marini MD, Regions Hospital MS11203B, 640 Jackson Street, St Paul, MN 55101-2595. E-mail: john.j.marini{at}healthpartners.com.
  • Dr Marini has disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • See the Original Study on Page 1619

  • Copyright © 2014 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Slutsky AS,
    2. Ranieri VM
    . Ventilator-induced lung injury. N Engl J Med 2013;369(22):2126–2136.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2000;342(18):1301–1308.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Hager DN,
    2. Krishnan JA,
    3. Hayden DL,
    4. Brower RG
    . Tidal volume reduction in patients with acute lung injury when plateau pressures are not high. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005;172(10):1241–1245.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Jardin F,
    2. Vieillard-Baron A
    . Is there a safe plateau pressure in ARDS? The right heart only knows. Intensive Care Med 2007;33(3):444–447.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Mireles-Cabodevila E,
    2. Chatburn RL,
    3. Thurman TL,
    4. Zabala LM,
    5. Holt SJ,
    6. Swearingen CJ,
    7. Heulitt MJ
    . Application of mid-frequency ventilation in an animal model of lung injury: a pilot study. Respir Care 2014;59(11):1619–1627.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Mireles-Cabodevila E,
    2. Chatburn RL
    . Mid-frequency ventilation: unconventional use of conventional mechanical ventilation as a lung-protection strategy. Respir Care 2008;53(12):1669–1677.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Marini JJ,
    2. Crooke PS 3rd.,
    3. Truwit JD
    . Determinants and limits of pressure-preset ventilation: a mathematical model of pressure control. J Appl Physiol 1989;67(3):1081–1092.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    The HIFI Study Group. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in the treatment of respiratory failure in preterm infants. N Engl J Med 1989;320(2):88–93.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Ferguson ND,
    2. Cook DJ,
    3. Guyatt GH,
    4. Mehta S,
    5. Hand L,
    6. Austin P,
    7. et al
    . High-frequency oscillation in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2013;368(9):795–805.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Mekontso Dessap A,
    2. Charron C,
    3. Devaquet J,
    4. Aboab J,
    5. Jardin F,
    6. Brochard L,
    7. Vieillard-Baron A
    . Impact of acute hypercapnia and augmented positive end-expiratory pressure on right ventricle function in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 2009;35(11):1850–1858.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Vlahakis NE,
    2. Hubmayr RD
    . Cellular stress failure in ventilator-injured lungs. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005;171(12):1328–1342.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Bein T,
    2. Weber-Carstens S,
    3. Goldmann A,
    4. Müller T,
    5. Staudinger T,
    6. Brederlau J,
    7. et al
    . Lower tidal volume strategy (≈3 mL/kg) combined with extracorporeal CO2 removal versus ‘conventional’ protective ventilation (6 mL/kg) in severe ARDS: The prospective randomized Xtravent-study. Intensive Care Med 2013;39(5):847–856.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 59 (11)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 59, Issue 11
1 Nov 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Monthly Podcast
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mid-Frequency Ventilation: A Viable Option for Lung Protection?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Mid-Frequency Ventilation: A Viable Option for Lung Protection?
John J Marini
Respiratory Care Nov 2014, 59 (11) 1808-1809; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.03687

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Mid-Frequency Ventilation: A Viable Option for Lung Protection?
John J Marini
Respiratory Care Nov 2014, 59 (11) 1808-1809; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.03687
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire