Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

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
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
LetterCorrespondence

The Quality of Quality Metrics

Robert L Chatburn
Respiratory Care February 2017, 62 (2) 253-254; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.05110
Robert L Chatburn
Respiratory Therapy Department Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Ohio
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editor:

Perhaps the most important skills the respiratory care profession offers the medical community are those associated with life support: resuscitation and mechanical ventilation. We might wonder, therefore, why we have such high expectations1 and yet so few metrics of quality performance in those areas. The study by Walsh et al2 could be a landmark contribution in that direction. On the one hand, replication of their work will be a challenge for most institutions; what they have done involved special hardware (to port data from ventilators to the electronic health record) and custom web-based analytics software developed by their institution. Having attempted more modest projects that involve custom software and electronic health record integration,3 I can appreciate the formidable barriers to entry. On the other hand, Walsh et al2 have provided a detailed set of rules that others can use to assemble quality metrics for the domains of mechanical ventilation, oxygenation, and ventilator-induced lung injury. Their definitions for rules-based algorithms might inform tools already developed in the emerging field of cognitive computing (eg, WatsonPaths).

However, before adopting all of the rules, I would question those related to ventilator-induced lung injury. Specifically, the paper2 defined barotrauma-free as “peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) ≤ 30 cm H2O” and volutrauma-free as “exhaled tidal volume > 4 mL/kg ideal body weight; < 8 mL/kg ideal body weight.” The results in the paper were reported as percentage of time spent in the “free” zones. First of all, these metrics were defined as measures reflecting ventilator settings, not lung trauma classifications as their names imply. Hence, they could be misleading. For example, someone reading only the abstract would probably conclude that freedom from the 2 types of traumas indicated actual patient outcomes. This could be avoided by simply naming these metrics in a way that reflects what they actually measure. For example instead of barotrauma-free, a more precise name might be low-risk PIP, and instead of volutrauma-free a better name would be low-risk tidal volume.

As the authors pointed out in the discussion, the quality of mechanical ventilation based on metrics like ventilator-associated pneumonia or incidence of pneumothoraces is an end point and hence is retrospective in nature. Although not explicitly stated as such, their study seemed to emphasize continuous, near real-time data analysis, rather than intermittent retrospective conclusions. In this context, monitoring PIP and tidal volume (VT) makes sense. But the names of their associated metrics do not make sense.

As a minor point, the term barotrauma is an anachronism. It was apparently coined back in 1973 to indicate lung damage associated with high PIP. In 1992, Dreyfuss et al4 showed that it was a high VT, not a high PIP, that was the major factor responsible for mechanical lung damage. Accordingly, they coined the more accurate term volutrauma.4 Gattinoni et al5 provide a very succinct and informative review. Even further, they point out that pressure change (stress) and volume change relative to a baseline (strain) are linearly related by a constant of proportionality, K (in this case defined as specific elastance): Embedded Image(1) where ΔPtp is static transpulmonary pressure (obtained with an inspiratory hold) associated with VT delivery (Ptp = pressure at airway opening minus pleural pressure6; ΔPtp = elastance × VT = one definition of driving pressure7) and ΔV is the VT relative to baseline or resting lung volume, V0. Actually the pressure change, ΔPtp, is also measured relative to a baseline (ie, PEEP), corresponding to V0 (although initially functional residual capacity was used as the reference lung volume in the equation8; hence, the reference pressure was ambient barometric pressure). The term K is specific elastance (the reciprocal of static compliance, often used to describe pediatric lung mechanics). It is defined by rearranging Equation 1 as follows. Embedded Image(2)

From Equation 2, we see that specific elastance has units of pressure (ie, volumes in the numerator and denominator cancel). Gattinoni et al are fond of saying “It follows that K … is the transpulmonary pressure recorded when VT equals the resting volume, in other words, when the lung doubles its volume,”5,8 yet I have never seen them explain exactly how it “follows.” The proof is that in Equation 2, if ΔV is set equal to V0, then the term V0/ΔV = 1, and hence K = ΔPtp. In other words, K is equal to the change in transpulmonary pressure required to make ΔV = V0 and hence the end-inspiratory volume = 2V0, or double the initial lung volume.

The point being, as Gattinoni et al stated,5 when ΔP is equated to ΔV (Equation 1), “The distinction between volutrauma and barotrauma then vanishes.” Hence, they should not be conceived of as 2 different metrics and certainly not defined as ventilator variables instead of patient outcomes, yet it is confusing to use the terms interchangeably when we want to refer to the strain-related cause of ventilator-induced lung injury.

In summary, I am suggesting that we use the term terms low-risk PIP instead of barotrauma-free and low-risk tidal volume instead of volutrauma-free in defining quality metrics of mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, I suggest that we use the term volutrauma (as a patient outcome quality descriptor) instead of barotrauma because volutrauma is more obviously associated with the measurement of VT, in contrast to barotrauma, which is easily mistaken to be associated with measurement of PIP instead of ΔPtp (which is also less convenient to measure than VT).

Footnotes

  • Mr Chatburn has disclosed relationships with IngMar Medical and DeVilbiss/Drive Medical.

  • Copyright © 2017 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Kacmarek RM
    . Mechanical ventilation competencies of the respiratory therapist in 2015 and beyond. Respir Care 2013;58(6):1087–1096.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Walsh BK,
    2. Smallwood CD,
    3. Rettig JS,
    4. Thompson JE,
    5. Kacmarek RM,
    6. Arnold JH
    . Categorization in mechanically ventilated pediatric subjects: a proposed method to improve quality. Respir Care 2016;61(9):1168–1178.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Chatburn RL,
    2. Gole S,
    3. Schenk P,
    4. Hoisington ER,
    5. Stoller JK
    . Respiratory care work assignment based on work rate instead of work load. Respir Care 2011;56(11):1785–1790.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Dreyfuss D,
    2. Saumon G
    . Barotrauma is volutrauma, but which volume is the one responsible? Intensive Care Med 1992;18(3):139–141.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Gattinoni L,
    2. Protti A,
    3. Caironi P,
    4. Carlesso E
    . Ventilator-induced lung injury: the anatomical and physiological framework. Crit Care Med 2010;38(10 Suppl):S539–S548.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Loring SH,
    2. Topulos GP,
    3. Hubmayr RD
    . Transpulmonary pressure: the importance of precise definitions and limiting assumptions. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016;194(12):1452–1457.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Amato MB,
    2. Meade MO,
    3. Slutsky AS,
    4. Brochard L,
    5. Costa EL,
    6. Schoenfeld DA,
    7. et al
    . Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2015;372(8):747–755.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Chiumello D,
    2. Carlesso E,
    3. Cadringher P,
    4. Caironi P,
    5. Valenza F,
    6. Polli F,
    7. et al
    . Lung stress and strain during mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;178(4):346–355.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 62 (2)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 62, Issue 2
1 Feb 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

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.
The Quality of Quality Metrics
(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
The Quality of Quality Metrics
Robert L Chatburn
Respiratory Care Feb 2017, 62 (2) 253-254; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.05110

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
The Quality of Quality Metrics
Robert L Chatburn
Respiratory Care Feb 2017, 62 (2) 253-254; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.05110
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 the Journal
  • 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