Current opinion in critical care · 2026
Patient-ventilator asynchronies beyond the waveform.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
de Haro Candelaria, Mireles-Cabodevila Eduardo, Castells-Tortosa Gerard, Sarlabous Leonardo, Blanch Lluís
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patient-ventilator asynchrony is commonly treated as a technical mismatch requiring correction, although asynchronous breaths are not uniformly harmful and apparent synchrony may conceal injurious effort. This review summarizes evidence from the past 18 months that redefines asynchrony through inspiratory effort, the transition to assisted breathing, and continuous waveform monitoring.
RECENT FINDINGS: Potential harm depends on effort magnitude and timing, breath stacking, ventilatory mode, lung and diaphragm vulnerability, dyspnea, and cumulative exposure. Double triggering, reverse triggering, and ineffective efforts may indicate injury, overassistance, or recovery depending on context. During transition, work shifts from ventilator to patient, exposing patients to both excessive and insufficient effort. Continuous analysis can identify burden, clustering, and physiological trajectories missed by intermittent inspection. Artificial-intelligence models increasingly estimate effort and dynamic driving pressure, but heterogeneous definitions, limited external validation, artifacts, and uncertain actionability constrain implementation.
SUMMARY: Management should move beyond eliminating individual events toward minimizing time outside individualized ranges of acceptable effort and assistance. Monitoring should integrate waveforms with effort, lung stress, diaphragm loading, dyspnea, ventilator settings, and temporal context. Artificial intelligence should support bedside reassessment rather than autonomous adjustment. Multicenter validation and physiology-guided trials must establish whether this approach improves patient-centered outcomes.
RECENT FINDINGS: Potential harm depends on effort magnitude and timing, breath stacking, ventilatory mode, lung and diaphragm vulnerability, dyspnea, and cumulative exposure. Double triggering, reverse triggering, and ineffective efforts may indicate injury, overassistance, or recovery depending on context. During transition, work shifts from ventilator to patient, exposing patients to both excessive and insufficient effort. Continuous analysis can identify burden, clustering, and physiological trajectories missed by intermittent inspection. Artificial-intelligence models increasingly estimate effort and dynamic driving pressure, but heterogeneous definitions, limited external validation, artifacts, and uncertain actionability constrain implementation.
SUMMARY: Management should move beyond eliminating individual events toward minimizing time outside individualized ranges of acceptable effort and assistance. Monitoring should integrate waveforms with effort, lung stress, diaphragm loading, dyspnea, ventilator settings, and temporal context. Artificial intelligence should support bedside reassessment rather than autonomous adjustment. Multicenter validation and physiology-guided trials must establish whether this approach improves patient-centered outcomes.