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
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Identifying Subjects at Risk for Diaphragm Atrophy During Mechanical Ventilation Using Routinely Available Clinical Data

Martin Urner, Nicholas Mitsakakis, Stefannie Vorona, Lu Chen, Michael C Sklar, Martin Dres, Gordon D Rubenfeld, Laurent J Brochard, Niall D Ferguson, Eddy Fan and Ewan C Goligher
Respiratory Care April 2021, 66 (4) 551-558; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.08223
Martin Urner
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas Mitsakakis
Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stefannie Vorona
Department of Medicine, Division of Respirology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lu Chen
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Keenan Centre for Biomedical Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael C Sklar
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Dres
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Keenan Centre for Biomedical Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gordon D Rubenfeld
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Program in Trauma, Emergency, and Critical Care Organization, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laurent J Brochard
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Keenan Centre for Biomedical Research, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Niall D Ferguson
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Department of Medicine, Division of Respirology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Departments of Medicine and Physiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eddy Fan
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Department of Medicine, Division of Respirology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ewan C Goligher
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diaphragmatic respiratory effort during mechanical ventilation is an important determinant of patient outcome, but direct measurement of diaphragmatic contractility requires specialized instrumentation and technical expertise. We sought to determine whether routinely collected clinical variables can predict diaphragmatic contractility and stratify the risk of diaphragm atrophy.

METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on diaphragm ultrasound in mechanically ventilated subjects. Clinical variables, such as breathing frequency, ventilator settings, and blood gases, were recorded longitudinally. Machine learning techniques were used to identify variables predicting diaphragm contractility and stratifying the risk of diaphragm atrophy (> 10% decrease in thickness from baseline). Performance of the variables was evaluated in mixed-effects logistic regression and random-effects tree models using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS: Measurements were available for 761 study days in 191 subjects, of whom 73 (38%) developed diaphragm atrophy. No routinely collected clinical variable, alone or in combination, could accurately predict either diaphragm contractility or the development of diaphragm atrophy (model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.63–0.75). The risk of diaphragm atrophy was not significantly different according to the presence or absence of patient-triggered breaths (38.3% vs 38.6%; odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.05–2.03). Diaphragm thickening fraction < 15% during either of the first 2 d of the study was associated with a higher risk of atrophy (44.6% vs 26.1%; odds ratio 2.28, 95% CI 1.05–4.95).

CONCLUSIONS: Diaphragmatic contractility and the risk of diaphragm atrophy could not be reliably determined from routinely collected clinical variables and ventilator settings. A single measurement of diaphragm thickening fraction measured within 48 h of initiating mechanical ventilation can be used to stratify the risk of diaphragm atrophy during mechanical ventilation.

  • diaphragm thickening
  • diaphragm thickening fraction
  • machine learning
  • random forest
  • spontaneous breathing
  • diaphragm atrophy

Introduction

Respiratory effort during mechanical ventilation is an important determinant of patient outcome. Both excessive and insufficient respiratory effort are associated with potential harm: forceful diaphragm contractions can exacerbate lung injury,1 cause load-induced diaphragm injury, and impair systemic oxygen delivery.2-5 At the same time, the suppression of diaphragmatic effort can cause diaphragm weakness and disuse atrophy,6,7 leading to prolonged mechanical ventilation and weaning failure.8-10 Both insufficient and excessive levels of diaphragmatic respiratory effort during the first 3 d after intubation are associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation.11

Close monitoring of respiratory effort during the first days of mechanical ventilation might allow for the timely detection of patients at risk of injurious breathing, providing the opportunity for direct interventions. Clinicians and researchers typically rely on readily available clinical variables, such as the mode of mechanical ventilation and breathing frequency, to assess the presence and magnitude of diaphragmatic respiratory effort. For example, previous landmark studies in ARDS have assumed that diaphragmatic effort was absent when set and measured breathing frequencies were equal under controlled modes of ventilation.12,13 However, the reliability of this approach is unknown. The availability of reliable clinical markers of diaphragm inactivity would enable timely detection and possible mitigation of the risk of diaphragm atrophy and associated poor outcomes.

Direct measurement of diaphragmatic effort, on the other hand, is infrequently performed in clinical practice, possibly because traditional techniques for monitoring respiratory effort (eg, electrical activity of the diaphragm or esophageal pressure) require specialized instrumentation and some degree of technical expertise.14 Recently, measurement of diaphragm thickening on bedside ultrasound has been introduced as a feasible and noninvasive surrogate measure of diaphragm contractility15; the rate of change in diaphragm thickness over time was associated with daily diaphragm thickening fraction measurements.8 However, it is unknown whether assessing diaphragm contractility directly (by ultrasound or by other means) adds useful information about the risk of diaphragm atrophy compared to routine assessment of the presence or absence of spontaneous breathing from readily available clinical variables (eg, ventilator settings). If direct assessment of diaphragm contractility provides important additional information to stratify this risk, then clinicians should consider routine direct monitoring of diaphragmatic contractility.

In this study, we set out to establish whether routinely collected clinical variables can detect the presence or absence of diaphragm contractility and stratify subjects at risk for subsequent diaphragm atrophy during mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure. For risk stratification, we determined whether a direct assessment of diaphragm contractility by diaphragm thickening fraction on ultrasound within the first 48 h of mechanical ventilation provided useful additional information to stratify the risk of diaphragm atrophy.

QUICK LOOK

Current knowledge

Ventilator-associated diaphragm atrophy during mechanical ventilation is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and complications which might be prevented by adjusting ventilation and sedation to restore adequate diaphragm activity. Bedside techniques are required to identify patients in whom diaphragm activity is inadequate and the risk of diaphragm atrophy is elevated.

What this paper contributes to our knowledge

The risk of developing diaphragm atrophy during mechanical ventilation could not be reliably determined using readily available clinical variables including breathing frequency, ventilator settings, or blood gas variables. Monitoring diaphragm thickening fraction during the early course of ventilation can be used to stratify the risk of developing diaphragm atrophy.

Methods

Study Participants and Measurements

We conducted a secondary analysis of a previously published cohort study assessing diaphragm thickness and diaphragm thickening fraction by daily ultrasound during the first 14 d of mechanical ventilation.8,11 In brief, the study enrolled 216 subjects with acute respiratory failure within 36 h of intubation who were anticipated to remain ventilated for ≥ 24 h; as previously described, the final analysis included 191 subjects who developed acute respiratory failure mainly due to respiratory (60 of 191 subjects) and cardiovascular (26 of 191 subjects) causes, or post-transplantation (29 of 191 patients). A total of 170 of 191 subjects (89%) met sepsis-3 criteria during the first 48 h. The median (interquartile range) Embedded Image/Embedded Image at baseline was 159 (105–233) mm Hg. Data on the development of diaphragm atrophy were available for 191 subjects. Subjects on extracorporeal life support were excluded from this analysis because the physiology on extracorporeal life support differs substantially from best-practice conventional mechanical ventilation. For this analysis, the primary outcome was diaphragm atrophy, defined as a 10% decrease in diaphragm thickness from baseline as in our previous work.11

Clinically available variables were collected as potential proxy variables of diaphragm contractility and of the development of diaphragm atrophy. These included subject anthropometric and demographic data, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score,16 Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale,17 and Glasgow Coma Scale,18 ventilator settings at 8:00 am daily (including mode, peak pressure, tidal volume, PEEP, and Embedded Image), the use of neuromuscular blocking agents, and arterial blood gases (obtained within 2 h of the ultrasound assessment). Actual weight instead of predicted body weight was used in 4 subjects with missing values for height.19 When subjects were ventilated in pressure support mode, set breathing frequency was defined as zero. Pressure support, proportional assist ventilation, and neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist were classified as partially assisted modes.

Detecting Diaphragm Contractility Based on Clinical Variables

For this analysis, diaphragm thickening fraction was used as a measure of diaphragm contractility and was recorded using transthoracic ultrasound at the level of the ninth or tenth intercostal space near the midaxillary line. We estimated diaphragm thickening fraction as the percentage change in diaphragm thickness during inspiration (calculated from the difference between peak inspiratory thickness and end-expiratory thickness divided by end-expiratory diaphragm thickness), as described in previous studies.8,11

Three different approaches were used to develop a method for identifying diaphragm contractility from clinical variables. First, we determined whether clinical variables selected on an a priori basis, mode of ventilation, and the difference between set and total breathing frequencies, could detect the presence or absence of diaphragm thickening using mixed-effects logistic regression (Model 1). Model performance was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity based on predicted class probabilities. In the primary analysis, we defined diaphragm thickening fraction ≥ 15% as the threshold for classification of present diaphragm thickening, based on previous work.11 As a sensitivity analysis, model performance was also evaluated for a range of diaphragm thickening fraction threshold values (between 1% and 35%).

Second, the Boruta algorithm was used to identify candidate variables for predicting the presence or absence of diaphragm thickening. This algorithm, a machine learning technique based on the random forest method,20 identifies variables that provide more predictive information than a randomly generated variable (ie, noninformative by design). All available clinical variables were supplied to the algorithm. The performance of the predictors selected by the algorithm was evaluated using mixed-effects logistic regression.21,22

Third, we evaluated whether a random-effects tree model (a different machine learning technique) incorporating all available clinical candidate variables could improve predictive performance.23 Model variables were scaled and centered,24 and a 100-fold subsampling validation was performed by repeatedly splitting the data at random into training (75%) and test data sets (25%) to assess predictive performance.25,26 Finally, we selected the model with the best sensitivity and specificity across all diaphragm thickening fraction thresholds (using the Youden’s index: sensitivity + specificity – 1) and calculated overall accuracy as an estimate of the percentage of misclassifications.

Stratifying the Risk of Diaphragm Atrophy

To determine whether clinical variables could be used to stratify the risk of diaphragm atrophy, the same models described above were reconstructed on a different end-point: the development of diaphragm atrophy (defined as a ≥ 10% decrease in diaphragm thickness from baseline) during mechanical ventilation. Alternatively, the relationship between the first measurement of the diaphragm thickening fraction (a direct assessment of diaphragm contractility) obtained during the first 2 d of mechanical ventilation and the risk of developing diaphragm atrophy was evaluated. Previous work described that subjects with thickening fraction between 15% and 30% (similar to breathing at rest) during the first 3 d had the shortest duration of ventilation.11 Using logistic regression, we therefore estimated the association between diaphragm thickening fraction < 15% or ≥ 15% during the first 2 d of mechanical ventilation and the development of diaphragm atrophy.

All analyses were performed with R 3.6.3 (R Development Core Team, 2020). The research ethics boards at University Health Network (12-5582, 13-5953) and St. Michael’s Hospital (14-229) approved the study protocols.

Results

Subject Characteristics

A total of 216 patients were available for analysis. Of these, we excluded 25 individuals because of missing data for clinical candidate variables or because they were receiving extracorporeal life support (see the supplementary material related to this paper at http://www.rcjournal.com). Therefore, 191 subjects with 718 observations were included in the analysis. Subject characteristics and summary of measurements are reported in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Baseline Subject Characteristics and Summary of Measurements

Subjects were ventilated using a partially assisted mode of ventilation during 58% of ultrasound measurements. A total of 26 of 191 (13.6%) subjects received neuromuscular blockade agents; 49 of 718 measurements were performed in subjects undergoing treatment with neuromuscular blockade agents (see the supplementary material related to this paper at http://www.rcjournal.com). Median diaphragm thickening fraction was 13% (interquartile range 7–21%). The distributions of diaphragm thickening fraction between subjects who are usually assumed to have no spontaneous breathing (ie, controlled mode, measured breathing frequency equal to set breathing frequency) and all other subjects overlapped substantially (Fig. 1). A total of 73 subjects (38%) developed diaphragm atrophy (defined as > 10% decrease in diaphragm thickness from baseline) during the first week of mechanical ventilation.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Density plot illustrating the distribution for diaphragm thickening fraction measured using ultrasound as a surrogate of diaphragm contraction or diaphragm thickening in mechanically ventilated subjects. Having equal set and measured breathing frequency under controlled ventilation corresponded to a distribution of diaphragm thickening values that overlapped by 55% with those of subjects who did not meet these criteria. The mode of ventilation and the difference between set and total breathing frequency have poor discriminative properties to accurately determine if diaphragm thickening is present. Dashed lines represent the medians of the 2 strata.

Diaphragm Contractility Based on Clinical Variables

The Boruta algorithm identified the difference between set and total breathing frequencies and the mode of ventilation (partially assisted vs continuous mandatory ventilation) as the best surrogate markers of diaphragm thickening fraction (Fig. 2). Expiratory minute volume, Embedded Image, SOFA score, neuromuscular blockade, and tidal volumes also ranked as variables with predictive information for the estimation of the thickening fraction. Embedded Image, Embedded Image, and PEEP did not provide more predictive information than a noninformative randomly generated variable.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

All-relevant feature selection using the Boruta algorithm was performed to identify clinical variables with informative value for the prediction of A: diaphragm thickening fraction and B: diaphragm atrophy. The algorithm considers features as relevant if they provide more predictive information than randomly generated “shadow variables” (ie, noninformative variables by design). Features ranked below shadowMax do not provide valuable information for prediction of diaphragm thickening fraction; the dashed line separates features based on their predictive value. VT per PBW = tidal volume per predicted body weight.

Models detecting diaphragm thickening based on a combination of clinical variables yielded an area under receiver operating characteristic curve ranging between 0.63 and 0.75, irrespective of the diaphragm thickening fraction threshold used to define diaphragm thickening area. Model performance did not meaningfully improve when additional clinical variables identified by the Boruta algorithm were included. Across the entire range of thickening fraction thresholds (0–5%), the best model performance was achieved with a RE-EM tree model (maximized for sensitivity and specificity) at a thickening fraction threshold of 15%. Under these conditions, model predictions were accurate in 69% of cases.

Stratifying the Risk for the Development of Diaphragm Atrophy

No single clinical candidate variable contained more discriminative information than a randomly generated variable regarding the development of diaphragm atrophy (Fig. 2). The presence of patient-triggered breaths (ie, controlled mode ventilation with measured equal to set breathing frequency or use of pressure support mode) during the first 2 d of mechanical ventilation was not associated with an increased risk of developing diaphragm atrophy (38.3% vs 38.6%; odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.05–2.03, P = .95). By contrast, the first measurement of diaphragm thickening fraction obtained within 48 h of initiating mechanical ventilation was associated with the risk of developing diaphragm atrophy (Fig. 3). Subjects with a diaphragm thickening fraction < 15% had a significantly higher risk of developing diaphragm atrophy (44.6% vs 26.1%; odds ratio 2.28, 95% CI 1.05–4.95, P = .038).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

The first measurement of diaphragm thickening fraction obtained within 48 h of information provided information about the risk of diaphragm atrophy (A), whereas the presence of patient-triggered breaths (assisted ventilation or assist-controlled mode with total > than the set breathing frequency) did not (B).

Discussion

We found that neither diaphragmatic contractility nor the risk of diaphragm atrophy could be reliably inferred from breathing frequency, ventilator settings, and other readily available clinical variables. However, we found that measurement of diaphragm thickening fraction using ultrasound during the first 48 h of mechanical ventilation could stratify the risk of diaphragm atrophy in subjects with acute respiratory failure. We conclude that diaphragmatic activity must be directly assessed (whether by ultrasound or other means) to assess the risk of diaphragm atrophy during mechanical ventilation.

To improve model performance, we attempted to identify clinical characteristics related to diaphragm thickening. Our results indicate that Embedded Image, SOFA score, and Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale might provide some additional predictive information. It is physiologically plausible that Embedded Image, as a critical determinant of respiratory drive, and Riker Agitation-Sedation score, measuring the depth of sedation, would have additional informative value regarding the amount of diaphragm thickening. Embedded Image, Embedded Image, and PEEP, on the other hand, did not contain more discriminative information than a random variable. Altogether, the inclusion of all these additional variables into the models only marginally improved model performance.

Based on the low sensitivity and accuracy of the models, our findings call into question the widely held assumption that the presence or absence of spontaneous breathing can be reliably inferred from ventilator settings and other routinely available clinical variables. Previous studies have reported that diaphragmatic effort is highly variable during mechanical ventilation and is only minimally affected by the ventilator mode.15,27,28 Indeed, patient work of breathing may be substantial in continuous mandatory ventilation modes.29 The patient’s breathing frequency has been identified as a marker for detecting ventilatory overassistance during pressure support ventilation.30 However, the magnitude of diaphragmatic effort is poorly correlated with breathing frequency during ventilator support.8,31 Many patients on partially assisted modes (in which every breath is triggered) exhibit minimal diaphragmatic effort. Given the sensitivity of ventilator triggering, triggering by low levels of accessory muscle activation (or from autotriggering) would require little to no diaphragmatic effort, perpetuating the risk of diaphragm atrophy under continuous mandatory ventilation. Thus, our findings align well with previous literature and provide stronger evidence that assessment of diaphragmatic effort requires direct patient monitoring.

Significant diaphragmatic effort in the absence of triggered breaths (ie, with equal set and total breathing frequency) may also result from reverse-triggering.32 The presence of elevated thickening fraction in a substantial proportion of patients with equal set and total breathing frequency suggests that reverse-triggering may be common during controlled mechanical ventilation. We speculate that the phenomenon of reverse-triggering, which may be quite prevalent during controlled mechanical ventilation, may account for the substantial lack of sensitivity of total versus set breathing frequency for the presence of diaphragm thickening.

The inability of routinely available clinical variables to stratify the risk of diaphragm atrophy, together with the utility of a direct assessment of diaphragm contractility by ultrasound to stratify this risk, suggests that direct monitoring of respiratory effort (whether by ultrasound or other means) provides valuable additional information to the clinician. In addition to assessing the risk of diaphragm atrophy from inactivity, respiratory effort monitoring can detect patient–ventilator asynchrony (including reverse-triggering) and elevated patient respiratory efforts associated with a possible risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury. Although diaphragm thickening fraction is an imperfect surrogate for diaphragm contractility, given that diaphragm thickening is only moderately correlated with diaphragm force generation, this value provided useful information about the risk of atrophy. Other monitoring techniques that provide more precise estimates of diaphragmatic contractility (eg, transdiaphragmatic pressure, electrical activity of the diaphragm) might stratify the risk of diaphragm atrophy with even greater discrimination.33,34

Our study has several limitations. First, diaphragmatic effort was indirectly estimated by ultrasound diaphragm thickening fraction rather than by direct measurements requiring esophageal and gastric manometry to measure trans-diaphragmatic pressure. For this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, we relied on available measurements in the dataset recorded once daily. Currently, clinicians have an array of techniques for monitoring diaphragmatic effort at their disposal, including esophageal pressure,14 electrical activity of the diaphragm,35 and less invasive techniques such as airway occlusion pressure (P0.1),28 expiratory occlusion pressure (Pocc),36 and diaphragm thickening on ultrasound.35,37 While some of these measurements are readily available, they are not yet routinely measured in clinical practice in most centers, and clinicians often rely on the mode of ventilation and breathing frequency to assess for the presence of respiratory effort or spontaneous breathing.38 The ultrasound technique has been shown to reflect diaphragm contractility during mechanical ventilation.8,37,39 Ultrasound is highly feasible in comparison to traditional manometry and therefore facilitates the routine assessment of diaphragm structure and function in large clinical cohort studies. Because the clinically relevant threshold value of diaphragm thickening fraction leading to the development of diaphragm atrophy or aggravating lung injury is uncertain, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to investigate a range of thickening fraction thresholds in addition to the a priori specified cutoff value. Further work, however, is required to evaluate the optimal level of diaphragm thickening that can be safely tolerated in mechanically ventilated patients. However, recent data suggest that a thickening fraction in the range of 15–30% (similar to healthy subjects breathing at rest) may be optimal.11

Importantly, the interobserver variability of diaphragm ultrasound measurements for thickening fraction ranges between 16–17%,15 which is within the range of cutoffs we used in our models. This variability in the reference standard might contribute in part to the poor predictive performance of the models we tested. Nevertheless, ultrasound measurements of diaphragm thickening fraction have repeatedly been shown to predict readiness for liberation from mechanical ventilation,37 the rate of change in diaphragm thickness during critical illness,39 and the risk of prolonged ventilation and ICU admission,40 despite this interobserver variability.

Second, not all clinical variables could be recorded simultaneously for logistical reasons (eg, blood gases were not always recorded simultaneously with the ultrasound measurements). The variables were recorded within a 2-h range before or after image acquisition, which could impair the performance of our models.

Conclusions

In summary, diaphragm contractility and the risk of diaphragm atrophy cannot be reliably inferred from ventilator mode, breathing frequency, or other clinical variables readily available at the bedside or in electronic health record systems, irrespective of the modeling strategy. To assess the risk of diaphragm atrophy or the presence of diaphragmatic contractility during mechanical ventilation, clinicians and researchers should employ monitoring techniques that directly assess diaphragm contractility.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Ewan C Goligher MD PhD, Toronto General Hospital, 585 University Ave, Peter Munk Building 11-192, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5G 2N2. E-mail: ewan.goligher{at}mail.utoronto.ca
  • See the Related Editorial on Page 701

  • Supplementary material related to this paper is available at http://www.rcjournal.com.

  • Dr Urner is supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Drs Fan and Goligher are supported in part by the CIHR. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • Copyright © 2021 by Daedalus Enterprises

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Yoshida T,
    2. Torsani V,
    3. Gomes S,
    4. De Santis RR,
    5. Beraldo MA,
    6. Costa EL,
    7. et al
    . Spontaneous effort causes occult pendelluft during mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;188(12):1420-1427.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Dres M,
    2. Goligher EC,
    3. Heunks LMA,
    4. Brochard LJ
    . Critical illness-associated diaphragm weakness. Intensive Care Med 2017;43(10):1441-1452.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.
    1. Reid WD,
    2. Huang J,
    3. Bryson S,
    4. Walker DC,
    5. Belcastro AN
    . Diaphragm injury and myofibrillar structure induced by resistive loading. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1994;76(1):176-184.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.
    1. Laghi F,
    2. D'Alfonso N,
    3. Tobin MJ
    . Pattern of recovery from diaphragmatic fatigue over 24 hours. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1995;79(2):539-546.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Orozco-Levi M,
    2. Lloreta J,
    3. Minguella J,
    4. Serrano S,
    5. Broquetas JM,
    6. Gea J
    . Injury of the human diaphragm associated with exertion and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;164(9):1734-1739.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Berger D,
    2. Bloechlinger S,
    3. von Haehling S,
    4. Doehner W,
    5. Takala J,
    6. Z'Graggen WJ,
    7. et al
    . Dysfunction of respiratory muscles in critically ill patients on the intensive care unit. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2016;7(4):403-412.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Dres M,
    2. Demoule A
    . Diaphragm dysfunction during weaning from mechanical ventilation: an underestimated phenomenon with clinical implications. Crit Care 2018;22(1):73.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Goligher EC,
    2. Fan E,
    3. Herridge MS,
    4. Murray A,
    5. Vorona S,
    6. Brace D,
    7. et al
    . Evolution of diaphragm thickness during mechanical ventilation. impact of inspiratory effort. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015;192(9):1080-1088.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    1. Levine S,
    2. Nguyen T,
    3. Taylor N,
    4. Friscia ME,
    5. Budak MT,
    6. Rothenberg P,
    7. et al
    . Rapid disuse atrophy of diaphragm fibers in mechanically ventilated humans. N Engl J Med 2008;358(13):1327-1335.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kim WY,
    2. Suh HJ,
    3. Hong SB,
    4. Koh Y,
    5. Lim CM
    . Diaphragm dysfunction assessed by ultrasonography: influence on weaning from mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 2011;39(12):2627-2630.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Goligher EC,
    2. Dres M,
    3. Fan E,
    4. Rubenfeld GD,
    5. Scales DC,
    6. Herridge MS,
    7. et al
    . Mechanical ventilation-induced diaphragm atrophy strongly impacts clinical outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018;197(2):204-213.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Bellani G,
    2. Laffey JG,
    3. Pham T,
    4. Fan E,
    5. Brochard L,
    6. Esteban A,
    7. et al
    . Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA 2016;315(8):788-800.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    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
  14. 14.↵
    1. Akoumianaki E,
    2. Maggiore SM,
    3. Valenza F,
    4. Bellani G,
    5. Jubran A,
    6. Loring SH,
    7. et al
    . The application of esophageal pressure measurement in patients with respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014;189(5):520-531.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Goligher EC,
    2. Laghi F,
    3. Detsky ME,
    4. Farias P,
    5. Murray A,
    6. Brace D,
    7. et al
    . Measuring diaphragm thickness with ultrasound in mechanically ventilated patients: feasibility, reproducibility and validity. Intensive Care Med 2015;41(4):734.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Vincent JL,
    2. de Mendonca A,
    3. Cantraine F,
    4. Moreno R,
    5. Takala J,
    6. Suter PM,
    7. et al
    . Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on “sepsis-related problems” of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit Care Med 1998;26(11):1793-1800.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Sessler CN,
    2. Gosnell MS,
    3. Grap MJ,
    4. Brophy GM,
    5. O'Neal PV,
    6. Keane KA,
    7. et al
    . The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166(10):1338-1344.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Bastos PG,
    2. Sun X,
    3. Wagner DP,
    4. Wu AW,
    5. Knaus WA
    . Glasgow Coma Scale score in the evaluation of outcome in the intensive care unit: findings from the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III study. Crit Care Med 1993;21(10):1459-1465.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Brower RG,
    2. Matthay MA,
    3. Morris A,
    4. Schoenfeld D,
    5. Thompson BT,
    6. et al
    . 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
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kursa MB,
    2. Rudnicki WR
    . Feature selection with the Boruta package. J Stat Softw 2010;36(11):13.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Bates D,
    2. Maechler M,
    3. Bolker B,
    4. Walker S,
    5. Christensen RHB,
    6. Singmann H,
    7. et al
    . lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf. Accessed October 26, 2020.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Knowles JE,
    2. Frederick C
    . merTools: tools for analyzing mixed effect regression models. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=merTools. Accessed October 26, 2020.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Sela RJ,
    2. Simonoff JS
    . RE-EM trees: a data mining approach for longitudinal and clustered data. Machine Learning 2011;86(2):169-207.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Kuhn M
    . Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J Stat Softw 2008;28(5):1-26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Robin X,
    2. Turck N,
    3. Hainard A,
    4. Tiberti N,
    5. Lisacek F,
    6. Sanchez JC,
    7. et al
    . pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 2011;12:77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Eugster MJ,
    2. Hothorn T,
    3. Leisch F
    . Exploratory and inferential analysis of benchmark experiments. 2008. Department of Statistics: Technical Reports, No. 30. Available at: https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4134. Accessed October 26, 2020.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Marini JJ,
    2. Rodriguez RM,
    3. Lamb V
    . The inspiratory workload of patient-initiated mechanical ventilation. Am Rev Respir Dis 1986;134(5):902-909.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Telias I,
    2. Junhasavasdikul D,
    3. Rittayamai N,
    4. Piquilloud L,
    5. Chen L,
    6. Ferguson ND,
    7. et al
    . Airway Occlusion Pressure As an Estimate of Respiratory Drive and Inspiratory Effort during Assisted Ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020;201(9):1086-1098.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Vassilakopoulos T,
    2. Zakynthinos S,
    3. Roussos C
    . The tension-time index and the frequency/tidal volume ratio are the major pathophysiologic determinants of weaning failure and success. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;158(2):378-385.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Akoumianaki E,
    2. Lyazidi A,
    3. Rey N,
    4. Matamis D,
    5. Perez-Martinez N,
    6. Giraud R,
    7. et al
    . Mechanical ventilation-induced reverse-triggered breaths: a frequently unrecognized form of neuromechanical coupling. Chest 2013;143(4):927-938.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Bellani G,
    2. Mauri T,
    3. Coppadoro A,
    4. Grasselli G,
    5. Patroniti N,
    6. Spadaro S,
    7. et al
    . Estimation of patient's inspiratory effort from the electrical activity of the diaphragm. Crit Care Med 2013;41(6):1483-1491.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Marini JJ,
    2. Smith TC,
    3. Lamb V
    . Estimation of inspiratory muscle strength in mechanically ventilated patients: the measurement of maximal inspiratory pressure. J Crit Care 1986;1(1):32-38.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.↵
    1. Laveneziana P,
    2. Albuquerque A,
    3. Aliverti A,
    4. Babb T,
    5. Barreiro E,
    6. Dres M,
    7. et al
    . ERS statement on respiratory muscle testing at rest and during exercise. European Respiratory Journal 2019;53(6).
  34. 34.↵
    1. Vivier E,
    2. Mekontso Dessap A,
    3. Dimassi S,
    4. Vargas F,
    5. Lyazidi A,
    6. Thille AW,
    7. et al
    . Diaphragm ultrasonography to estimate the work of breathing during non-invasive ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2012;38(5):796-803.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Gottesman E,
    2. McCool FD
    . Ultrasound evaluation of the paralyzed diaphragm. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155(5):1570-1574.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Bertoni M,
    2. Telias I,
    3. Urner M,
    4. Long M,
    5. Del Sorbo L,
    6. Fan E,
    7. et al
    . A novel non-invasive method to detect excessively high respiratory effort and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure during mechanical ventilation. Crit Care 2019;23(1):346.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. DiNino E,
    2. Gartman EJ,
    3. Sethi JM,
    4. McCool FD
    . Diaphragm ultrasound as a predictor of successful extubation from mechanical ventilation. Thorax 2014;69(5):423-427.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. van Haren F,
    2. Pham T,
    3. Brochard L,
    4. Bellani G,
    5. Laffey J,
    6. Dres M,
    7. et al
    . Spontaneous Breathing in Early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Insights From the Large Observational Study to UNderstand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory FailurE Study. Crit Care Med 2019;47(2):229-238.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    1. Zambon M,
    2. Beccaria P,
    3. Matsuno J,
    4. Gemma M,
    5. Frati E,
    6. Colombo S,
    7. et al
    . Mechanical ventilation and diaphragmatic atrophy in critically ill patients: an ultrasound study. Crit Care Med 2016;44(7):1347-1352.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Dubé BP,
    2. Dres M,
    3. Mayaux J,
    4. Demiri S,
    5. Similowski T,
    6. Demoule A
    . Ultrasound evaluation of diaphragm function in mechanically ventilated patients: comparison to phrenic stimulation and prognostic implications. Thorax 2017;72(9):811-818.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 66 (4)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 66, Issue 4
1 Apr 2021
  • 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.
Identifying Subjects at Risk for Diaphragm Atrophy During Mechanical Ventilation Using Routinely Available Clinical Data
(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
Identifying Subjects at Risk for Diaphragm Atrophy During Mechanical Ventilation Using Routinely Available Clinical Data
Martin Urner, Nicholas Mitsakakis, Stefannie Vorona, Lu Chen, Michael C Sklar, Martin Dres, Gordon D Rubenfeld, Laurent J Brochard, Niall D Ferguson, Eddy Fan, Ewan C Goligher
Respiratory Care Apr 2021, 66 (4) 551-558; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08223

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Identifying Subjects at Risk for Diaphragm Atrophy During Mechanical Ventilation Using Routinely Available Clinical Data
Martin Urner, Nicholas Mitsakakis, Stefannie Vorona, Lu Chen, Michael C Sklar, Martin Dres, Gordon D Rubenfeld, Laurent J Brochard, Niall D Ferguson, Eddy Fan, Ewan C Goligher
Respiratory Care Apr 2021, 66 (4) 551-558; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08223
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
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • diaphragm thickening
  • diaphragm thickening fraction
  • machine learning
  • random forest
  • spontaneous breathing
  • diaphragm atrophy

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