Abstract
Objective
The objective of this study was to identify the definitional criteria for the pressure-limited and time-cycled modes: airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) available in the published literature.
Design
Systematic review.
Methods
Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases (1982–2006) were searched using the following terms: APRV, BIPAP, Bilevel and lung protective strategy, individually and in combination. Two independent reviewers determined the paper eligibility and abstracted data from 50 studies and 18 discussion articles.
Measurements and results
Of the 50 studies, 39 (78%) described APRV, and 11 (22%) described BIPAP. Various study designs, populations, or outcome measures were investigated. Compared to BIPAP, APRV was described more frequently as extreme inverse inspiratory:expiratory ratio [18/39 (46%) vs. 0/11 (0%), P = 0.004] and used rarely as a noninverse ratio [2/39 (5%) vs. 3/11 (27%), P = 0.06]. One (9%) BIPAP and eight (21%) APRV studies used mild inverse ratio (>1:1 to ≤2:1) (P = 0.7), plus there was increased use of 1:1 ratio [7 (64%) vs. 12 (31%), P = 0.08] with BIPAP. In adult studies, the mean reported set inspiratory pressure (PHigh) was 6 cm H2O greater with APRV when compared to reports of BIPAP (P = 0.3). For both modes, the mean reported positive end expiratory pressure (PLow) was 5.5 cm H2O. Thematic review identified inconsistency of mode descriptions.
Conclusions
Ambiguity exists in the criteria that distinguish APRV and BIPAP. Commercial ventilator branding may further add to confusion. Generic naming of modes and consistent definitional parameters may improve consistency of patient response for a given mode and assist with clinical implementation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) are modes of mechanical ventilation that allow unrestricted spontaneous breathing independent of ventilator cycling, using an active expiratory valve [1–4]. Both modes are pressure-limited and time-cycled. Ventilation occurs via the time-cycled switching between two set pressure levels. In the absence of spontaneous breathing, these modes resemble conventional pressure-limited, time-cycled ventilation (Table 1) [5].
A proposed advantage of APRV and BIPAP compared to conventional pressure-controlled ventilation is the improved distribution of gas to dependent lung regions as the result of spontaneous breathing enabled during the inspiratory and expiratory time cycles. Radiologic studies indicate that gas is directed to dependent well-perfused regions of the lungs during spontaneous breathing due to the movement of the posterior muscular sections of the diaphragm [2]. Improved gas distribution to dependent lung regions prevents atelectasis and promotes alveolar recruitment resulting in an improved ventilation–perfusion matching [6, 7].
Within the scientific literature, descriptions of APRV and BIPAP lack clarity. Various authors use the term APRV to describe a range of ventilatory settings [8–11]. Others use the term BIPAP to describe settings that are indistinguishable from certain descriptions of APRV [12]. In North America, the acronym BiPAP® is reserved for noninvasive ventilation available on Respironics ventilators (Murrayville, PA, USA). With registration of this acronym, ventilator companies have developed other terms or acronyms to refer to modes with similar characteristics.
Reports of the international utilization of ventilator modes indicate limited clinical uptake of pressure-control modes, which include APRV and BIPAP [13, 14]. Clarity of definitional criteria may assist in the clinical understanding and application of these modes. The aim of this paper is to identify the criteria that define and distinguish APRV and BIPAP within existing scientific literature.
Methods
The following databases were electronically searched: Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and CINAHL, from 1982 to 2006, using the terms APRV, BIPAP, Bilevel, and lung protective strategy, individually and in combination. Two independent reviewers determined the eligibility of papers based on appraisal of the article title and abstract, retrieved potentially relevant studies, and decided on study eligibility. Reference lists of those papers meeting inclusion criteria were also examined. All study designs were included. Studies were considered for inclusion if ventilator mode characteristics were identified, specifically inspiratory and expiratory times or I:E ratio. Studies that contained enough data to calculate these variables, e.g., respiratory rate and expiratory time, were also included.
No attempt was made to contact authors for unpublished data, as the objective was to identify distinguishing criteria for APRV and BIPAP existent in the available literature. Studies published only in abstract form were not included. Data on the study design and population, mode settings, mode of comparison (if any), and outcome measures were then abstracted from included experimental studies onto predesigned forms by each reviewer following comprehensive review. Both reviewers transcribed mode descriptions from discussion articles onto data collection forms independently.
Analyses
Continuous variables describing mode characteristics from experimental studies were summarized as mean and SD and compared using Student t tests. Reported I:E ratios were categorized into four groups: noninverse, 1:1, mild inverse (>1:1 to ≤2.0), and extreme inverse (≥2.1), and compared using Fisher exact tests due to small expected values. Other categorical data including study population, study outcome, I:E ratio, and synchronization of the switching between set inspiratory pressure (PHigh) and positive end expiratory pressure (PLow) levels to spontaneous effort were summarized as proportions and also compared using chi square tests. Because of the substantial heterogeneity in study design, study population, comparative group, and primary outcome, no attempt was made to pool data for the purposes of meta-analysis. A two-tailed P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using Minitab 14 [15]. Discussion articles were examined using content analysis to identify themes [16]. Article content was coded under theme headings such as ‘enables spontaneous breathing’ or ‘APRV uses short release time and long inspiratory times’ and then examined for repetition, characteristics and dimensions that identified and confirmed categories.
Results
Database searching yielded 501 citations, of which 81 were selected on review of the title and abstract. On further review, data was abstracted from 50 studies and 18 discussion articles. Both reviewers agreed in the selection of included studies (κ= 1). Excluded articles were those that contained editorial comment only (n = 8); the focus of the article was either APRV or BIPAP, but no description of the mode was provided (n = 2); or the main focus was not the mode of ventilation (n = 2).
Of the 50 studies, 31 (62%) were human clinical studies [8–11, 17–43] and 19 (38%) [12, 44–60] were experimental (either animal or bench) studies. The 31 human clinical studies included 14 (45%) interventional [8, 9, 17, 18, 22, 30, 32, 36–40, 42, 43] and 17 (55%) observational studies [10, 11, 19–21, 23–29, 31, 33–35, 41]. None of the human clinical studies were blinded; only two of the experimental studies were blinded. In these two studies reported by the same first author, investigators blinded to the mode of ventilation analyzed computed tomography images to determine aeration of lung tissue [59, 60].
Airway pressure release ventilation was the named mode in 39 (78%) studies [8, 9, 11, 17, 19–21, 23–27, 29, 31–33, 35, 36, 38–43, 46–53, 55–61], and BIPAP in 11 (22%) studies [10, 12, 18, 22, 28, 30, 34, 37, 44, 45, 54]. All 50 studies described a ventilatory mode that enabled spontaneous breathing at two pressure levels. The majority of reports involved either adult patients (21 APRV and seven BIPAP studies) or animal studies (14 APRV studies and 4 BIPAP studies). Only three studies [25, 36, 41] were conducted in the paediatric population, all describing the use of APRV. One study was conducted using a lung model [61]. Eleven [8, 9, 11, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 38, 42, 43] of the 31 (35%) human studies involved patients with acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), 5 (16%) reported the use of the ventilator mode in patients following coronary artery graft surgery [18, 27, 30, 34, 40] and a further four (13%) studies were conducted in patients with acute respiratory failure distinct from ALI and ARDS [19, 23, 33, 36]. The remaining studies examined the use of APRV and BIPAP for a variety of patient diagnoses.
Forty-three studies compared the identified mode to another style of ventilation. Pressure-controlled ventilation was the most frequent mode of comparison (13/43, 30% of comparative studies [9, 10, 28, 29, 32, 42, 44, 45, 52, 54, 59, 60]). Pressure-controlled ventilation was applied either through use of intermittent mandatory ventilation (IMV), assist control (A/C), or through neuromuscular blockade-induced apnoea with APRV or BIPAP. Volume-controlled modes were evaluated in 10 (23%) studies [11, 17, 19, 27, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 58] and spontaneous modes, either continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or pressure support ventilation were evaluated in a further 10 (23%) studies [8, 12, 18, 22, 37, 39, 47, 51, 55, 57]. Six (14%) studies looked at either different release times for APRV [31, 50, 54], comparison with high frequency oscillatory ventilation [48], tracheal gas insufflation [53] or automatic tube compensation [43]. A further four (9%) studies [20, 40, 49, 56] compared the mode of interest with both mandatory (IMV or A/C) and spontaneous modes.
Table 2 shows the reported outcomes of studies that compared APRV or BIPAP with another mode of ventilation. The majority of studies (30/43, 70%) examined a number of variables including determinants of gas exchange, lung mechanics hemodynamic variables, and sedation use. Studies that compared APRV or BIPAP to volume-control ventilation all found a reduction in the peak inspiratory pressure. Improvement in oxygenation indices and hemodynamic parameters were the two most frequent findings when either APRV or BIPAP were compared to a pressure-control mode (Table 2).
Ventilator settings
In adult studies, the mean reported set inspiratory pressure (PHigh) was 6 cm H2O higher with APRV when compared to reports of BIPAP (P = 0.3). The mean reported positive end expiratory pressure (PLow) was the same for both modes (Fig. 1). Various descriptors for set inspiratory pressure (PHigh) and positive end expiratory pressure (PLow) were identified (Table 3). The mean reported inspiratory time was 3.4 ± 1.7 s for APRV studies conducted in adults compared to 2.4 ± 0.9 s for studies BIPAP (P = 0.08). Conversely, the mean reported expiratory time was nearly three times longer in BIPAP studies compared to APRV (3.4 ± 1.6 and 1.3 ± 0.4 s, respectively, P = 0.01).
For analytical purposes, studies reporting I:E ratios were categorised into the following: an extreme inverse ratio (>2:1), mild inverse ratio (>1:1 to ≤2:0), 1:1 ratio, and a noninverse ratio. Extreme inverse I:E ratios were used exclusively in APRV studies (P = 0.004), whereas 1:1 and normal inverse ratios were used more frequently in BIPAP studies (Table 4).
The majority (38/50, 76%) of identified experimental studies did not discuss the method of patient-ventilator synchronization. Of the remaining 12 studies, eight stated the identified mode synchronized with patient’s effort [10, 18, 20, 22, 31, 37, 39, 61]. These comprised 36% of those identifying BIPAP as the mode of interest and 10% of APRV studies. Three (43%) APRV studies that described synchronization stated that it was not available [9, 19, 38].
Discussion themes
The following themes describing the modes APRV and BIPAP were identified through content analysis of discussion papers: enables spontaneous breathing during two phases of the respiratory cycle [1–4, 58, 62–73]; applies two levels of CPAP [1, 3, 4, 58, 63, 64, 66–69, 71–74]; the difference (between the two modes) is the I:E ratio; BIPAP implies conventional as well as inverse, APRV always implies inverse [64, 66, 68, 72]; modes are synonymous [71]; modes form a continuum [1, 2, 63]; APRV implies short release times and long inspiratory times [1–4, 63–68, 70]; and a PLow of 0 cm H2O is recommended for APRV [4, 65, 66]. Commonalities in the descriptions of APRV and BIPAP were the ability for spontaneous breathing throughout both the inspiratory and expiratory phases of the respiratory cycle and the application of two levels of CPAP [set inspiratory pressure (PHigh) and positive end expiratory pressure (PLow)]. Inconsistency existed in the defining criteria to distinguish the two modes. Some authors acknowledged a distinction between APRV and BIPAP [64, 66, 68, 72]; others described the modes as a continuum [1, 2, 63] while the two modes are referred to synonymously elsewhere [71].
Discussion
The aim of this systematic review was to determine the defining characteristics of the two ventilator modes, APRV and BIPAP, existent in the published scientific literature. A moderate number of scientific investigations and educational or opinion articles were identified in which APRV was the named mode for the majority. The major distinction found in the description of the two modes was the mean duration of set expiratory time; nearly three times longer in BIPAP studies compared to reports of APRV. Conversely, set inspiratory pressure (PHigh) and positive end expiratory pressure (PLow) settings were similar in reports of either mode.
Another key finding was the lack of consistent parameters to describe or distinguish these two modes. In some studies, the ventilator settings used to apply APRV were indistinguishable from those used for BIPAP [54, 55]. Moreover, summary descriptions reported for educational purposes depicted APRV and BIPAP as either distinct modes, belonging to a continuum of ventilator styles, or as synonymous. The application of APRV, however, was more frequently described as a prolonged inspiratory time and shortened expiratory time resulting in an extreme inverse ratio. In contrast, no BIPAP studies described this type of ventilatory settings.
The original work conducted on these two modes of ventilation was undertaken by separate groups in different countries and published within two years of each other. Airway pressure release ventilation originated from North America and was initially described by Stock and Downs as CPAP with an intermittent release phase [58]. Subsequently, BIPAP was described by the European team, Baum and colleagues, as a mode that combined pressure-controlled ventilation and spontaneous breathing [7, 75].
In the original description of APRV, a mild inverse ratio was applied (1.3:1 in normal lungs and 1.4:1 in injured lungs) [58]. In subsequent studies, the applied inspiratory time for APRV was extended to 4 s or greater [9, 29, 38, 57]. Conversely, in the initial description of BIPAP, an inverse ratio of greater than 1:1 was distinguished as inverse ratio (IR) BIPAP and described as a variation of the mode [62]. Only one identified study has examined the use of BIPAP with an I:E ratio greater than 1:1 [28].
Commercial ventilator branding has imposed restrictions on the naming of modes and possibly contributed to the existing ambiguity in mode terminology. In North America, the term BiPAP® is reserved for noninvasive, pressure-controlled ventilation available on Respironics ventilators (Respironics Inc., Murraysville, PA, USA). This led ventilator companies to develop terms such as BiLevel (Puritan Bennett, Pleasanton, CA, USA; GE Healthcare, Madison, WI, USA), Bivent (Maquet, Solna, Sweden), DuoPaP (Hamilton Medical, Rhäzüns, Switzerland), PCV+ (Dräger Medical, Lübeck, Germany), or BiPhasic (Viasys, Conshocken, PA, USA).
Consistency in the parameters that define APRV and BIPAP is needed to enable clinicians to decide on an appropriate style of ventilation based on a patient’s clinical condition. Reports of the benefits of these modes demonstrate improvements in gas exchange [25, 26], hemodynamic parameters [10, 29, 46, 51], and a reduction in overall sedation requirements [29]. Some of these benefits may be attributable to the maintenance of spontaneous breathing common to both ventilator modes [2, 6, 7]. Further improvements in gas exchange, however, may be the result of an extended inspiratory time and shortened expiratory time that promote recruitment of alveoli with longer time constants [4]. These improvements may be dependent on the extreme inverse ratio advocated by some APRV studies [25, 26, 29]. There is the potential that expected improvements in gas exchange might not occur without use of an extreme inverse ratio, which may deter clinicians new to the mode from using an unfamiliar style of ventilation. Anecdotally, some clinicians perceive APRV as an extreme form of ventilatory support that may pose risk to patients. This perception may prevent clinical uptake of APRV, and by association BIPAP, used with a more conventional I:E ratio.
Conclusions
Ambiguity exists in the criteria that distinguish APRV and BIPAP. When applied with the same I:E ratio, no difference exists between the two modes. APRV as opposed to BIPAP, however, is more frequently described with an extreme inverse ratio and advocated as a method to improve oxygenation in refractory hypoxemia. This application of APRV warrants the consistent use of a distinguishing acronym similar to that used when differentiating the use of an inverse ratio in pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV-IRV).
Uncertainty concerning the correct style of application for APRV and BIPAP may obstruct the clinical adoption of these modes. Generic naming of ventilator modes, as with drug prescribing, combined with consistent definitions of the parameters that define and distinguish APRV and BIPAP, would help standardise research designed to investigate the effect of these modes of mechanical ventilatory support. This may improve the consistency of patient response and assist with future implementation into clinical practice.
References
Hormann C, Baum M, Putensen C, Koller W, Putz G (1994) Biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP)—a new mode of ventilatory support. Eur J Anaesthesiol 11:37–42
Kuhlen R, Rossaint R (2002) The role of spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation. Respir Care 47:296–303
McCunn M, Habashi NM (2002) Airway pressure release ventilation in the acute respiratory distress syndrome following traumatic injury. Int Anaesthesiol Clin 40:89–102
Habashi N (2005) Other approaches to open-lung ventilation: airway pressure release ventilation. Crit Care Med 33:S228–S240
Putensen C, Wrigge H (2006) Airway pressure-release ventilation. In: Tobin M (ed) Principles and practice of mechanical ventilation. McGraw-Hill, New York
Hedenstierna G, Lattuada M (2002) Gas exchange in the ventilated patient. Curr Opin Crit Care 8:39–44
Sydow M (2001) Biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) and airway pressure release ventilation (APRV). In: Kuhlen R, Guttman J, Rossaint R (eds) New forms of assisted spontaneous breathing. Urban & Fischer Verlag, Munich, pp 35–65
Putensen C, Mutz N, Putensen-Himmer G, Zinserling J (1999) Spontaneous breathing during ventilatory support improves ventilation–perfusion distributions in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 159:1241–1248
Varpula T, Valta P, Niemi R, Takkunen O, Hynynen M, Pettila V (2004) Airway pressure release ventilation as a primary ventilatory mode in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 48:722–731
Neumann P, Schubert A, Heuer J, Hinz J, Quintel M, Klockgether-Radke A (2005) Hemodynamic effects of spontaneous breathing in the post-operative period. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 49:1443–1448
Davis K, Johnson D, Branson R, Campbell R, Johannigman J, Porembka D (1993) Airway pressure release ventilation. Arch Surg 128:1348–1352
Putensen C, Rasanen J, Lopez F (1995) Interfacing between spontaneous breathing and mechanical ventilation affects ventilation–perfusion distributions in experimental bronchoconstriction. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 151:993–999
Esteban A, Anzueto A, Alia I, Gordo F, Apezteguia C, Palizas F, Cide D, Goldwaser R, Soto L, Bugedo G, Rodrigo C, Pimentel J, Raimondi G, Tobin MJ (2000) How is mechanical ventilation employed in the intensive care unit? An international utilization review. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 161:1450–1458
Esteban A, Anzueto A, Frutos F, Alia I, Brochard L, Stewart TE, Benito S, Epstein S, Apezteguia C, Nightingale P, Arroliga AC, Tobin MJ (2002) Characteristics and outcomes in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a 28-day international study. JAMA 28:345–355
Minitab (2003) Minitab version 14. Minitab, USA
Burns N, Grove S (2001) The practice of nursing research, 4th edn. W·B. Saunders, Philadelphia
Bratzke E, Downs J, Smith R (1998) Intermittent CPAP: a new mode of ventilation during general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 89:334–340
Calzia E, Lindner KH, Witt S, Schirmer U, Lange H, Stenz R, Georgieff M (1994) Pressure–time product and work of breathing during biphasic continuous positive airway pressure and assisted spontaneous breathing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 150:904–910
Cane R, Peruzzi W, Shapiro B (1991) Airway pressure release ventilation in severe acute respiratory failure. Chest 100:460–463
Chiang A, Steinfeld A, Gropper C, MacIntyre NR (1994) Demand-flow airway pressure release ventilation as a partial ventilatory support mode: comparison with synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and pressure ventilation. Crit Care Med 22:1431–1437
Dart B, Maxwell R, Richart C, Brooks D, Ciraulo D, Barker D, Burns RP (2005) Preliminary experience with airway pressure release ventilation in a trauma/surgical intensive care unit. J Trauma 59:71–76
Elrazek E (2004) Randomized prospective crossover study of biphasic intermittent positive airway pressure ventilation (BIPAP) versus pressure support ventilation (PSV) in surgical intensive care patients. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 17:1009–1021
Falkenhain S, Reilley T, Gregory J (1992) Improvement in cardiac output during airway pressure release ventilation. Crit Care Med 20:1358–1360
Florete O, Banner M, Banner T, Rodriguez J, Kirby R (1989) Airway pressure release ventilation in a patient with acute pulmonary injury. Chest 96:679–682
Foland J, Martin J, Novotny T, Super D, Dyer R, Mhanna M (2001) Airway pressure release ventilation with a short release time in a child with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Respir Care 46:1019–1023
Frawley P, Cowan J (2002) Airway pressure release ventilation: the future of trauma ventilatory support? J Trauma Nurs 9:75–82
Garner W, Downs J, Stock M, Rasanen J (1988) Airway pressure release ventilation: a human trial. Chest 94:779–781
Hormann C, Baum M, Putensen C, Kleinsasser A, Benzer H (1997) Effects of spontaneous breathing with BIPAP on pulmonary gas exchange in patients with ARDS. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl 111:152–155
Kaplan L, Bailey H, Formosa V (2001) Airway pressure release ventilation increases cardiac performance in patients with acute lung injury/adult respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care 5:221–226
Kazmaier S, Rathgeber J, Buhre W, Biuscher H, Busch T, Mechsching K, Sonntag H (2000) Comparison of ventilatory and haemodynamic effects of BIPAP and S-IMV/PSV for postoperative short-term ventilation in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Anaesthesiol 17:601–610
Neumann P, Golisch W, Strohmeyer A, Buscher H, Burchardi H, Sydow M (2002) Influence of different release times on spontaneous breathing pattern during airway pressure release ventilation. Intensive Care Med 28:1742–1749
Putensen C, Zech S, Wrigge H, Zinserling J, Stuber F, Von Spiegel T, Mutz N (2001) Long-term effects of spontaneous breathing during ventilatory support in patients with acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 164:43–49
Rasanen J, Cane R, Downs J, Hurst J, Jousela I, Kirby R, Rogove HJ, Stock MC (1991) Airway pressure release ventilation during acute lung injury: a prospective multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 19:1234–1241
Rathgeber J, Schorn B, Falk V, Kazmaier S, Spiegel T, Burchardi H (1997) The influence of controlled mandatory ventilation (CMV), intermittent mandatory ventilation (IMV) and biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) on duration of intubation and consumption of analgesics and sedatives. A prospective analysis in 596 patients following adult cardiac surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 14:576–582
Schultz TR, Durning SM (1999) Case report. Airway pressure release ventilation. RT: J Respir Care Prac 12:84–85
Schultz TR, Costarino AT Jr, Durning SM, Napoli LA, Schears G, Godinez RI, Priestley M, Dominguez T, Lin R, Helfaer M (2001) Airway pressure release ventilation in pediatrics. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2:243–246
Staudinger T, Kordova H, Roggla M, Tesinsky P, Locke G, Laczik K, Knapp S, Frazz M (1998) Comparison of oxygen cost of breathing with pressure-support ventilation and biphasic intermittent positive airway pressure ventilation. Crit Care Med 26:1518–1522
Sydow M, Burchardi H, Ephraim E, Zielman S (1994) Long-term effects of two different ventilatory modes on oxygenation in acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 149:1550–1556
Uyar M, Demirag K, Olgun E, Cankayali I, Moral A (2005) Comparison of oxygen cost of breathing between pressure-support and airway pressure release ventilation. Anaesthes Intensive Care 33:218–222
Valentine D, Hammond M, Downs J, Sears N, Sims W (1991) Distribution of ventilation and perfusion with different modes of mechanical ventilation. Am Rev Respir Dis 143:1262–1266
Varpula T, Pettila V, Nieminem H, Takkunen O (2001) Airway pressure release ventilation and prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 45:340–344
Varpula T, Jousela I, Niemi R, Takkunen O, Pettila V (2003) Combined effects of prone positioning and airway pressure release ventilation on gas exchange in patients with acute lung injury. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 47:516–524
Wrigge H, Zinserling J, Hering R, Schwalferberg N, Stuber F, Von Spiegel T, Schroeder S, Hedenstierna G, Putensen C (2001) Cardiorespiratory effects of automatic tube compensation during airway pressure release ventilation in patients with acute lung injury. Anesthesiology 95:382–389
Henzler D, Dembinski R, Bensberg R, Hochhausen N, Rossaint R, Kuhlen R (2004) Ventilation with biphasic positive airway pressure in experimental lung injury. Intensive Care Med 30:935–943
Henzler D, Pelosi P, Bensberg R, Dembinski R, Quintel M, Pielen V, Rossaint R, Kuhlen R (2006) Effects of partial ventilatory support modalities on respiratory function in severe hypoxemic lung injury. Crit Care Med 34:1738–1745
Hering R, Viehofer A, Zinserling J, Wrigge H, Kreyer S, Berg A, Minot T, Putensen C (2003) Effects of spontaneous breathing during airway pressure release ventilation on intestinal blood flow in experimental lung injury. Anesthesiology 99:1137–1144
Hering R, Zinserling J, Wrigge H, Varelmann D, Berg A, Kreyer S, Putensen C (2005) Effects of spontaneous breathing during airway pressure release ventilation on respiratory work and muscle blood flow in experimental lung injury. Chest 128:2991–2998
Jousela I, Linko K, Makelainen A (1992) A comparison of continuous positive pressure ventilation, combined high frequency ventilation and airway pressure release ventilation on experimental lung injury. Intensive Care Med 18:299–303
Martin L, Wetzel R, Bilenki A (1991) Airway pressure release ventilation in a neonatal lamb model of acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 19:373–378
Martin L, Wetzel R (1994) Optimal release time during airway pressure release ventilation in neonatal sheep. Crit Care Med 22:486–493
Neumann P, Hedenstierna G (2001) Ventilatory support by continuous positive airway pressure breathing improves gas exchange as compared with partial ventilatory support with airway pressure release ventilation. Anesthes Analges 92:950–958
Neumann P, Wrigge H, Zinserling J, Hinz J, Maripu E, Andersson L, Putensen C, Hedenstierna G (2005) Spontaneous breathing affects the spatial ventilation and perfusion distribution during mechanical ventilatory support. Crit Care Med 33:1090–1095
Okamoto K, Kishi H, Choi H, Sato T (1997) Combination of tracheal gas insufflation and airway pressure release ventilation. Chest 111:1366–1374
Putensen C, Rasanen J, Lopez F (1994) Ventilation–perfusion distribution during mechanical ventilation with superimposed spontaneous breathing in canine lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 150:101–108
Putensen C, Rasanen J, Lopez F, Downs J (1994) Effect of interfacing between spontaneous breathing and mechanical cycles on the ventilation–perfusion distribution in canine lung injury. Anesthesiology 81:921–930
Rasanen J, Downs J, Stock M (1988) Cardiovascular effects of conventional positive pressure ventilation and airway pressure release ventilation. Chest 93:911–915
Smith R, Smith D (1995) Does airway pressure release ventilation alter lung function after acute lung injury? Chest 107:805–806
Stock M, Downs J, Froclicher D (1987) Airway pressure release ventilation. Crit Care Med 15:462–466
Wrigge H, Zinserling J, Neumann P, Defosse J, Magnusson A, Putensen C, Hedenstierna G (2003) Spontaneous breathing improves lung aeration in oleic acid lung injury. Anesthesiology 99:376–384
Wrigge H, Zinserling J, Neumann P, Muders T, Magnusson A, Putensen C (2005) Spontaneous breathing with airway pressure release ventilation favors ventilation in dependent lung regions and counters cyclic alveolar collapse in oleic-acid-induced lung injury: a randomised controlled computed tomography trial. Crit Care 9:780–789
Putensen C, Leon M, Putensen-Himmer G (1994) Timing of pressure release affects power of breathing and minute ventilation during airway pressure release ventilation. Crit Care Med 22:872–878
Baum M, Benzer H, Putensen C, Koller W, Putz G (1989) Biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP)—a new form of augmented ventilation. Anaesthetist 38:452–458
Burchardi H (1996) New strategies in mechanical ventilation for acute lung injury. Eur Respir J 9:1063–1072
Calzia E, Radermacher P (1997) Airway pressure release ventilation and biphasic positive airway pressure. A 10-year literature review. Clin Intensive Care 8:296–301
Frawley P, Habashi N (2001) Airway pressure release ventilation: theory and practice. AACN Clin Issues 12:234–246
Frawley P, Habashi N (2004) Airway pressure release ventilation and pediatrics: theory and practice. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am 16:319–336
Habashi NM, Andrews P (2004) Ventilator strategies for posttraumatic acute respiratory distress syndrome: airway pressure release ventilation and the role of spontaneous breathing in critically ill patients. Curr Opin Crit Care 10:549–557
Hedenstierna G, Lichtwarck-Aschoff M (2006) Interfacing spontaneous breathing and mechanical ventilation. New insights. Minerva Anestesiol 72:183–198
MacIntyre NR (1996) New modes of mechanical ventilation. Clin Chest Med 17:411–421
Petsinger D, Fernanzez J, Davies J (2006) What is the role of airway pressure release ventilation in the management of acute lung injury. Respir Care Clin N Am 12:483–488
Putensen C, Hering R, Wrigge H (2002) Controlled versus assisted mechanical ventilation. Curr Opin Crit Care 8:51–57
Putensen C, Wrigge H (2004) Clinical review: biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation. Crit Care 8:492–497
Putensen C, Muders T, Varelmann D, Wrigge H (2006) The impact of spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation. Curr Opin Crit Care 12:13–18
Downs J, Stock M (1987) Airway pressure release ventilation: a new concept in ventilatory support. Crit Care Med 15:459–461
Calzia E, Bein T (2004) Breath by breath, spontaneously or mechanically supported: lessons from biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP). Intensive Care Med 30:744–745
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no potentially conflicting financial interests or any other actual or potential conflict of interest to be declared.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was performed at the Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, Toronto, Canada and the Intensive Care Unit of the Stirling Royal Infirmary, UK.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rose, L., Hawkins, M. Airway pressure release ventilation and biphasic positive airway pressure: a systematic review of definitional criteria. Intensive Care Med 34, 1766–1773 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-008-1216-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-008-1216-3