Sensory interventions to relieve dyspnoea in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients
- PMID: 37678956
- DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02215-2022
Sensory interventions to relieve dyspnoea in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients
Abstract
Background: In critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation, dyspnoea is frequent, severe and associated with an increased risk of neuropsychological sequelae. We evaluated the efficacy of sensory interventions targeting the brain rather than the respiratory system to relieve dyspnoea in mechanically ventilated patients.
Methods: Patients receiving mechanical ventilation for ≥48 h and reporting dyspnoea (unidimensional dyspnoea visual analogue scale (Dyspnoea-VAS)) first underwent increased pressure support and then, in random order, auditory stimulation (relaxing music versus pink noise) and air flux stimulation (facial versus lower limb). Treatment responses were assessed using Dyspnoea-VAS, the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile and measures of the neural drive to breathe (airway occlusion pressure (P 0.1) and electromyography of inspiratory muscles).
Results: We included 46 patients (tracheotomy or intubation n=37; noninvasive ventilation n=9). Increasing pressure support decreased Dyspnoea-VAS by median 40 mm (p<0.001). Exposure to music decreased Dyspnoea-VAS compared with exposure to pink noise by median 40 mm (p<0.001). Exposure to facial air flux decreased Dyspnoea-VAS compared with limb air flux by median 30 mm (p<0.001). Increasing pressure support, but not music exposure and facial air flux, reduced P 0.1 by median 3.3 cmH2O (p<0.001).
Conclusions: In mechanically ventilated patients, sensory interventions can modulate the processing of respiratory signals by the brain irrespective of the intensity of the neural drive to breathe. It should therefore be possible to alleviate dyspnoea without resorting to pharmacological interventions or having to infringe the constraints of mechanical ventilation lung protection strategies by increasing ventilatory support.
Copyright ©The authors 2024. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest: M. Decavèle reports personal fees from Isis Medical, outside the submitted work. M. Dres reports grants and personal fees from Lungpacer Inc., outside the submitted work. T. Similowski reports personal fees from ADEP Assistance, AstraZeneca France, Boehringer Ingelheim France, Chiesi France, GSK France, Lungpacer Inc., Novartis France and Teva France, outside the submitted work; and in addition has a patent for a brain–ventilator interface licensed, and patents for a protection device for intubation and a noncontact thoracic movement imaging system pending. A. Demoule reports personal fees from Medtronic, Baxter, Hamilton and Getinge, grants and personal fees from Philips and Respinor, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Fisher & Paykel, grants from the French Ministry of Health, and grants and nonfinancial support from Lungpacer, outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to disclose.
Comment in
-
Treatment of dyspnoea.Eur Respir J. 2024 Jan 18;63(1):2301565. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01565-2023. Print 2024 Jan. Eur Respir J. 2024. PMID: 38237994 No abstract available.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources