Discordance Between Respiratory Drive and Sedation Depth in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation
- PMID: 34115638
- PMCID: PMC8602777
- DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005113
Discordance Between Respiratory Drive and Sedation Depth in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation
Abstract
Objectives: In mechanically ventilated patients, deep sedation is often assumed to induce "respirolysis," that is, lyse spontaneous respiratory effort, whereas light sedation is often assumed to preserve spontaneous effort. This study was conducted to determine validity of these common assumptions, evaluating the association of respiratory drive with sedation depth and ventilator-free days in acute respiratory failure.
Design: Prospective cohort study.
Setting: Patients were enrolled during 2 month-long periods in 2016-2017 from five ICUs representing medical, surgical, and cardiac specialties at a U.S. academic hospital.
Patients: Eligible patients were critically ill adults receiving invasive ventilation initiated no more than 36 hours before enrollment. Patients with neuromuscular disease compromising respiratory function or expiratory flow limitation were excluded.
Interventions: Respiratory drive was measured via P0.1, the change in airway pressure during a 0.1-second airway occlusion at initiation of patient inspiratory effort, every 12 ± 3 hours for 3 days. Sedation depth was evaluated via the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Analyses evaluated the association of P0.1 with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (primary outcome) and ventilator-free days.
Measurements and main results: Fifty-six patients undergoing 197 bedside evaluations across five ICUs were included. P0.1 ranged between 0 and 13.3 cm H2O (median [interquartile range], 0.1 cm H2O [0.0-1.3 cm H2O]). P0.1 was not significantly correlated with the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RSpearman, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.16; p = 0.80). Considering P0.1 terciles (range less than 0.2, 0.2-1.0, and greater than 1.0 cm H2O), patients in the middle tercile had significantly more ventilator-free days than the lowest tercile (incidence rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93; p < 0.01) or highest tercile (incidence rate ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.70; p < 0.01).
Conclusions: Sedation depth is not a reliable marker of respiratory drive during critical illness. Respiratory drive can be low, moderate, or high across the range of routinely targeted sedation depth.
Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Dr. Beitler’s institution received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH); he received funding from Hamilton Medical and Sedana Medical; he received support for article research from the NIH. Drs. Dzierba, Khalil, Derry, and Madahar have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.
Figures



Comment in
-
Managing Patient-Ventilator Dyssynchrony.Crit Care Med. 2021 Dec 1;49(12):2149-2151. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005154. Crit Care Med. 2021. PMID: 34793383 No abstract available.
-
Lung-protective sedation: moving toward a new paradigm of precision sedation.Intensive Care Med. 2023 Jan;49(1):91-94. doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06901-z. Epub 2022 Oct 14. Intensive Care Med. 2023. PMID: 36239747 No abstract available.
References
-
- Reade MC, Finfer S: Sedation and delirium in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:444–454 - PubMed
-
- Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gélinas C, et al.: Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2018; 46:e825–e873 - PubMed
-
- Chanques G, Kress JP, Pohlman A, et al.: Impact of ventilator adjustment and sedation-analgesia practices on severe asynchrony in patients ventilated in assist-control mode. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:2177–2187 - PubMed
-
- Payen JF, Chanques G, Mantz J, et al.: Current practices in sedation and analgesia for mechanically ventilated critically Ill patients. Anesthesiology 2007; 106:687–695 - PubMed