JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by von Goedecke, A.
Right arrow Articles by Keller, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by von Goedecke, A.
Right arrow Articles by Keller, C.

Anesth Analg 2005;100:357-360
© 2005 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000143563.39519.FD

PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA

Pressure Support Ventilation Versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Ventilation with the ProSealTM Laryngeal Mask Airway: A Randomized Crossover Study of Anesthetized Pediatric Patients

A. von Goedecke, MD*, J. Brimacombe, MB, ChB, FRCA, MD{dagger}, C. Hörmann, MD*, H. -C. Jeske, MD*, A. Kleinsasser, MD*, and C. Keller, MD*

*Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Leopold-Franzens University, Innsbruck, Austria; and {dagger}James Cook University, Cairns Base Hospital, Australia

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Professor J. Brimacombe, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, The Esplanade, Cairns 4870, Australia. Address e-mail to jbrimaco@bigpond.net.au.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and pressure support ventilation (PSV) improve gas exchange in adults, but there are little published data regarding children. We compared the efficacy of PSV with CPAP in anesthetized children managed with the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway. Patients were randomized into two equal-sized crossover groups and data were collected before surgery. In Group 1, patients underwent CPAP, PSV, and CPAP in sequence. In Group 2, patients underwent PSV, CPAP, and PSV in sequence. PSV comprised positive end-expiratory pressure set at 3 cm H2O and inspiratory pressure support set at 10 cm H2O above positive end-expiratory pressure. CPAP was set at 3 cm H2O. Each ventilatory mode was maintained for 5 min. The following data were recorded at each ventilatory mode: ETco2, Spo2, expired tidal volume, peak airway pressure, work of breathing patient (WOB), {delta} esophageal pressure, pressure time product, respiratory drive, inspiratory time fraction, respiratory rate, noninvasive mean arterial blood pressure, and heart rate. In Group 1, measurements for CPAP were similar before and after PSV. In Group 2, measurements for PSV were similar before and after CPAP. When compared with CPAP, PSV had lower ETco2 (46 ± 6 versus 52 ± 7 mm Hg; P < 0.001), slower respiratory rate (24 ± 6 versus 30 ± 6 min–1; P < 0.001), lower WOB (0.54 ± 0.54 versus 0.95 ± 0.72 JL–1; P < 0.05), lower pressure time product (94 ± 88 versus 150 ± 90 cm H2O s–1min–1; P < 0.001), lower {delta} esophageal pressure (10.6 ± 7.4 versus 14.1 ± 8.9 cm H2O; P < 0.05), lower inspiratory time fraction (29% ± 3% versus 34% ± 5%; P < 0.001), and higher expired tidal volume (179 ± 50 versus 129 ± 44 mL; P < 0.001). There were no differences in Spo2, respiratory drive, mean arterial blood pressure, and heart rate. We conclude that PSV improves gas exchange and reduces WOB during ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway anesthesia compared with CPAP in ASA physical status I children aged 1–7 yr.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Spontaneous breathing (SB) is a popular mode of ventilation with the classic laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in children (1–3), but it is frequently associated with inadequate gas exchange, particularly hypercapnia. Studies of children managed with a tracheal tube (4,5) have shown that pressure support ventilation (PSV) improves gas exchange and/or work of breathing (WOB) during SB. A study of children aged 2 ± 2 yr managed with the classic LMA showed that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) reduces WOB during SB (6). There are no publications comparing the efficacy of PSV and CPAP with any LMA device in children. The ProSealTM LMA (PLMA) is a new LMA with a modified cuff to improve the seal and a drain tube that prevents gastric insufflation when correctly positioned (7–9), but there are no published data about its use in children. In the following randomized, crossover study, we compared the efficacy of PSV with CPAP in healthy anesthetized pediatric patients aged 1–7 yr undergoing routine surgery managed with the PLMA.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Twenty consecutive children (ASA physical status I, aged 1–7 yr) undergoing general or urologic surgery in which the PLMA was considered suitable were studied. Exclusion criteria were prematurity (<35 wk gestation), a known or predicted difficult airway, mouth opening <1 cm, a body mass index >30 kg m–2, or risk of aspiration (fasted <4 h). Ethical committee approval and parental written informed consent were obtained.

Premedication consisted of oral midazolam 0.5 mg/kg and atropine 20 µg/kg 45 min preoperatively. A standard anesthesia protocol was followed and routine monitoring applied. Anesthesia was induced with propofol 4 mg/kg. A single experienced PLMA user (CK, >1000 uses) inserted/fixed the PLMA (size 2 in all patients) according to the manufacturer’s instructions (10). Additional boluses of propofol 1 mg/kg were given as required until an adequate level of anesthesia was achieved for placement. Anesthesia maintenance consisted of sevoflurane 2% and O2 35% in air. In all children, intraoperative analgesia was performed with a caudal block using ropivacaine 0.2% 1–1.25 mL/kg. Once an effective airway was obtained, the intracuff pressure was set and held constant at 60 cm H2O using a digital manometer (Mallinckrodt Medical, Athlone, Ireland). Oropharyngeal leak pressure was determined by closing the expiratory valve of the anesthesia breathing system at a fixed gas flow of 3 L/min and noting the airway pressure (maximum allowed, 40 cm H2O) at which equilibrium was reached (11). Epigastric auscultation was performed during oropharyngeal leak pressure testing to detect any gastric insufflation (12). The lungs were manually inflated until SB resumed. Patients were then attached to a ventilator (modified Evita 4; Draeger Medizintechnik GmbH, Luebeck, Germany) and were randomly allocated into two crossover groups. In Group 1 (n = 10), patients underwent CPAP, PSV, and CPAP in sequence. In Group 2 (n = 10), patients underwent PSV, CPAP, and PSV in sequence. PSV comprised positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) set at 3 cm H2O and pressure support set at 10 cm H2O above PEEP. CPAP was set at 3 cm H2O. Pressure support was initiated when inspiration produced a 2-cm H2O reduction in airway pressure and a flow of 2.5 L/min. The machine had no bias flow. Each ventilatory mode was maintained for 5 min.

Respiratory variables were measured and analyzed using a pulmonary monitor (CP-100; BiCore Monitoring System, Irvine, CA) attached to a variable orifice pneumotachograph (Var flex; Allied Health Products, Riverside, CA) and an esophageal balloon catheter inserted through the drain tube of the PLMA (Smart Cath; Allied Health Products) (13–15) (Fig. 1) (14,15). The esophageal balloon catheter was 3 mm in diameter, 70 cm long, and constructed from medical-grade polyurethane. The inflated balloon was 0.9 cm in diameter and 10 cm long. The frequency response was 30 Hz. The esophageal balloon catheter was connected directly to the catheter port on the BiCore monitoring system. The BiCore monitoring system automatically performs a vacuum leak test and fills the esophageal balloon with 0.8 mL of air. The pneumotachograph was connected directly to the proximal end of the airway tube measuring airway pressure and flow. The CO2 sampling port was sited above the flow transducer. The position of the esophageal balloon catheter was checked and adjusted where necessary by observation of the cardiac artifact on the esophageal waveform, as recommended by the manufacturer. The classical airway occlusion test was not used, because the patients were not yet spontaneously breathing. The machine pop-off valve was set at 40 cm H2O.



View larger version (111K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. The size 2 ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway with the esophageal balloon catheter in the drain tube.

 

The following data were recorded every 30 s for the last 2 min of each ventilatory mode and the average reading taken: ETco2, Spo2, noninvasive mean arterial blood pressure, end-tidal sevoflurane concentration, fraction of inspired oxygen, axillary skin temperature, expired tidal volume (VTExp), respiratory rate, peak airway pressure, WOB (sum of the physiologic work, including elastic and flow resistive work of the respiratory system and airway device), pressure time product (PTP), {delta} esophageal pressure, inspiratory time fraction, and respiratory drive. Any ingestion or expulsion of air via the drain tube was detected by observing movement of a column of lubricant placed in the drain tube before and after esophageal balloon catheter insertion. Measurements were made before surgery.

Sample size was selected for a type I error of 0.05 and a power of 0.9 and was based on a pilot study of 6 patients with a measured difference in the VTExp of 25% between the groups. The distribution of data was determined using Kolmogorov-Smirnov analysis (16). Statistical analysis was with paired t-test (normally distributed data) and Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance (non-normally distributed data). Within-patient variability of each set was determined using one-way analysis of variance. Significance was taken as P < 0.05.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
There were no demographic differences between groups. Data are presented in Table 1. All data were normally distributed. There was no significant within-patient variability of each set of the readings. In Group 1, measurements for CPAP were similar before and after PSV. In Group 2, measurements for PSV were similar before and after CPAP. In both groups, PSV had lower ETco2 (P < 0.001), slower respiratory rate (P < 0.001), lower WOB patient (P < 0.05), lower PTP (P < 0.001), lower {delta} esophageal pressure (P < 0.05), and higher VTExp (P < 0.001) compared with CPAP (Table 2). In both groups, PSV had similar Spo2, respiratory drive, mean arterial blood pressure, and heart rate compared with CPAP. Data for CPAP were similar between groups and for PSV were similar between groups. Gastric insufflation was not detected during oropharyngeal leak pressure testing.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Demographic and Anesthetic Characteristics

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Hemodynamic and Respiratory Characteristics During Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)

 


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
We found that PSV provided better gas exchange than CPAP. This is because PSV leads to higher airway pressures resulting in a larger lung volume being available for gas exchange. The level of PSV was selected according to Tokioka et al. (4), who found that PSV of 10 cm H2O resulted in a tidal volume of approximately 9 mL/kg body weight in children breathing through a tracheal tube. There were two studies that investigated the efficacy of PSV and/or CPAP1 (17) with the classic LMA in adults and a single study that investigated the efficacy of CPAP with the classic LMA in children. Capdevila et al.,1 in a preliminary study of 36 adults, found that PSV improves gas exchange compared with SB and decreases leaks compared with positive pressure ventilation, but with similar gas exchange. In a crossover study of 40 adults, we (17) found that PSV (with PEEP set at 5 cm H2O and inspiratory pressure support set at 5 above PEEP) provides more effective ventilation while preserving leak fraction and hemodynamic homeostasis than CPAP set at 5 cm H2O. Keidan et al. (6), in a study of 8 children aged 2 ± 2 years, found that CPAP set at 5–6 cm H2O reduces the WOB with the LMA.

WOB is increased in spontaneously breathing patients undergoing general anesthesia with an artificial airway (18). We found that PSV resulted in approximately 40% reduction in WOB compared with CPAP. This is because the ventilator is providing much of the energy required to deliver each breath. The PTP is an estimate of the oxygen consumption or metabolic work of the respiratory muscles and may be used to evaluate patient effort to overcome both mechanical and isometric force of inspiration during mechanical ventilation (19,20). The decrease in PTP from CPAP to PSV reflects the reduced respiratory muscle workload and the increased ventilator workload.

We found that that the oropharyngeal leak pressure was 25 cm H2O. This is 13 cm H2O higher than with the classic LMA using the same methodology in children of similar age (21). This suggests that the size 2 PLMA forms a better seal that the classic LMA, but a comparative study between the 2 devices is required to confirm this. We detected no episodes of gastric insufflation during oropharyngeal leak pressure testing. PSV and CPAP should be safer with the PLMA than the classic LMA, because the efficacy of the seal with the hypopharynx is probably greater (22) and any esophageal leaks should be vented from the drain tube if it is correctly positioned. We detected no differences in cardiovascular effects between PSV and CPAP. This is not surprising, because intrathoracic pressure changes were only 7 cm H2O higher for PSV.

Our study has a number of limitations. First, only healthy ASA physical status I children without underlying respiratory disease or obesity were enrolled in the study and our results may not be applicable to other patient populations. Second, we did not measure the arterial partial pressure of oxygen, which is a more sensitive test of oxygenation than oxygen saturation, and it is possible that subtle differences in oxygenation went undetected. Third, the data were collected over a short period before commencement of surgery and, in principle, our results may not be applicable to prolonged SB. However, if anything, the differences between PSV and CPAP are likely to increase with duration because of greater respiratory fatigue with CPAP.

We conclude that PSV improves gas exchange and reduces WOB during PLMA anesthesia compared with CPAP in ASA physical status I children aged 1–7 years.


   Footnotes
 
1 Capdevila X, Biboulet P, Vallee M, et al. Pressure support ventilation with a laryngeal mask during general anesthesia [abstract]. Anesthesiology 1995;83:A1226. Back

This project was supported solely by departmental resources.

JB and CK have worked as consultants for The Laryngeal Mask Company, who manufacture the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway.

Accepted for publication August 11, 2004.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Moylan SL, Luce MA. The reinforced laryngeal mask airway in paediatric radiotherapy. Br J Anaesth 1993;71:172.
  2. St Claire Logan A, Morris P. Complications following use of the laryngeal mask airway in children. Paediatr Anaesth 1993;3:297–300.
  3. Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Alvarez M. Safety and efficacy of the laryngeal mask airway: a prospective survey of 1400 children. Anaesthesia 1996;51:969–72.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Tokioka H, Kinjo M, Hirakawa M. The effectiveness of pressure support ventilation for mechanical ventilatory support in children. Anesthesiology 1993;78:880–4.[ISI][Medline]
  5. Jarreau PH, Moriette G, Mussat P, et al. Patient-triggered ventilation decreases the work of breathing in neonates. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;153:1176–81.[Abstract]
  6. Keidan I, Fine GF, Kagawa T, et al. Work of breathing during spontaneous ventilation in anesthetized children: a comparative study among the face mask, laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube. Anesth Analg 2000;91:1381–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Brain AIJ, Verghese C, Strube PJ. The LMA ‘ProSeal’: a laryngeal mask with an oesophageal vent. Br J Anaesth 2000;84:650–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSeal laryngeal mask airway: a randomized, crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 2000;93:104–9.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Fullekrug B, et al. A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal with the Classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients. Anesthesiology 2002;96:289–95.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Verghese C. LMA-Classic TM, LMAFlexible TM, LMAUnique TM: instruction manual. Henley-on-Thames: The Laryngeal Mask Company, 1999.
  11. Keller C, Brimacombe J, Keller K, Morris R. A comparison of four methods for assessing airway sealing pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in adult patients. Br J Anaesth 1999;82:286–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Kurian S, Myles J. Reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation. Br J Anaesth 2002;88:127–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Petros AJ, Lamond CT, Bennett D. The Bicore pulmonary monitor: a device to assess the work of breathing while weaning from mechanical ventilation. Anaesthesia 1993;48:985–8.[ISI][Medline]
  14. Banner MJ, Kirby RR, Blanch PB, Layon AJ. Decreasing imposed work of the breathing apparatus to zero using pressure-support ventilation. Crit Care Med 1993;21:1333–8.[ISI][Medline]
  15. Thomas AM, Turner RE, Tenholder MF. Esophageal pressure measurements in cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Chest 1997;112:829–32.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Gaddis GM, Gaddis ML. Introduction to biostatistics. Part 5. Statistical inference techniques for hypothesis testing with nonparametric data. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:1054–9.[ISI][Medline]
  17. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Hörmann C. Pressure support ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure with the laryngeal mask airway: a randomized crossover study of anesthetized adult patients. Anesthesiology 2000;92:1621–3.[ISI][Medline]
  18. Westbrook PR, Stubbs SE, Sessler AD, et al. Effects of anesthesia and muscle paralysis on respiratory mechanics in normal man. J Appl Physiol 1973;34:81–6.[Free Full Text]
  19. Collett PW, Perry C, Englel LA. Pressure-time product, flow, and oxygen cost of resistive breathing in humans. J Appl Physiol 1985;58:1263–72.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Sassoon CS, Light RW, Lodia R, et al. Pressure-time product during continuous positive airway pressure, pressure support ventilation and T-piece during weaning from mechanical ventilation. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991;143:469–75.[ISI][Medline]
  21. Lopez-Gil M, Brimacombe J, Keller C. A comparison of four methods for assessing oropharyngeal leak pressure with the laryngeal mask airway in paediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth 2000;11:319–21.
  22. Keller C, Brimacombe J, Kleinsasser A, Loeckinger A. Does the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway prevent aspiration of regurgitated fluid? Anesth Analg 2000;91:1017–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. Garcia-Fernandez, G. Tusman, F. Suarez-Sipmann, J. Llorens, M. Soro, and J. F. Belda
Programming Pressure Support Ventilation in Pediatric Patients in Ambulatory Surgery with a Laryngeal Mask Airway
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2007; 105(6): 1585 - 1591.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
K. Goldmann, C. Roettger, and H. Wulf
Use of the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway for pressure-controlled ventilation with and without positive end-expiratory pressure in paediatric patients: a randomized, controlled study
Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2005; 95(6): 831 - 834.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by von Goedecke, A.
Right arrow Articles by Keller, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by von Goedecke, A.
Right arrow Articles by Keller, C.

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press