Valores descritivos de complacência estática e sua comparação entre pausas inspiratórias de 0,5 e 2,0 segundos em pacientes ventilados mecanicamente: um estudo transversal
Descriptive values of static compliance and their comparison between 0.5 and 2.0-second inspiratory pauses in mechanically ventilated patients: a cross-sectional study
Tainã de Jesus Cerqueira Santos, Thainá Regina dos Santos, Bruno Moraes Gavazza, Bruno Prata Martinez, Helder Brito Duarte
Resumo
Introdução: Estudos apontam intervalos de complacência quasiestática do sistema respiratório (Cest) variando entre 50 a 70 ml/cmH2O – independente do tempo de pausa inspiratória (0,5 ou 2,0 segundos), no entanto tem sido observado que esses valores são impraticáveis cotidianamente. Objetivo: descrever e comparar os valores de Cest através de pausas de 0,5 e 2,0 segundos, comparar as medidas de mecânica pulmonar entre pacientes com e sem alterações pulmonares e correlacionar dados antropométricos e ventilatórios com a Cest. Método: trata-se de um estudo transversal e prospectivo. Foram coletados dados antropométricos e de mecânica pulmonar, dentre eles a Cest e pressão de distensão pulmonar (DP), utilizando pausas inspiratórias de 0,5 e 2,0 segundos cada avaliação. A amostra foi caracterizada de acordo com presença de comorbidades. Resultados: Foram incluídos 35 pacientes, destes 47,5% (16) mulheres, mediana de idade de 62 (intervalo interquartil [IIQ] 47,0-74,0) anos, com mediana de 166,0cm (160,0-172,0) de altura, 80% eram perfil clínico. A mediana de Cest foi de 37,2ml/cmH2O (30,2-46,6) e DP de 9,0 cmH2O (7,8-10,9). Houve diferença estatisticamente significante (p<0,01) entre as pausas de 0,5 e 2,0 segundos nos valores de Cest (35,0 e 37,2 ml/cmH2O) e DP (10,0 e 9,0 cmH2O) na amostra total. As correlações entre Cest de 2,0 segundos com DP e altura foram moderadas e estatisticamente significantes (p<0,01). Conclusão: A partir dos dados analisados, a mediana de Cest foi de 37,2 cmH2O. Diferentes tempos de pausa inspiratória podem afetar valores de mecânica pulmonar em pacientes com afecções pulmonares devido às propriedades multicompartimentais do parênquima pulmonar, indicando uma possível heterogeneidade.
Palavras-chave
Abstract
Background: Studies point to quasi-static respiratory system compliance (Cest) intervals ranging from 50 to 70 ml/cmH2O – independent of the inspiratory pause time (0.5 or 2.0 seconds), however it has been observed that these values are impractical in daily practice. Aim: To describe and compare Cest values using 0.5 and 2.0-second pauses, compare pulmonary mechanics measurements between patients with and without pulmonary alterations, and correlate anthropometric and ventilatory data with Cest. Methods: This was a cross-sectional and prospective study. Anthropometric and pulmonary mechanics data were collected, including Cest and driving pressure (DP), using inspiratory pauses of 0.5 and 2.0 seconds for each assessment. The sample was characterized according to the presence of comorbidities. Results: Thirty-five patients were included, of whom 47.5% (16) were women, with a median age of 62 (interquartile range [IQR] 47.0–74.0) years, and a median height of 166.0 cm (160.0–172.0). Eighty percent were clinical profile. The median Cest was 37.2 ml/cmH2O (30.2–46.6) and DP was 9.0 cmH2O (7.8–10.9). There was a statistically significant difference (p<0.01) in Cest and DP values between the 0.5 and 2.0-second pauses in the total sample and in the group with pulmonary affection. The correlations between Cest at 2.0 seconds with DP and height were moderate and statistically significant (p<0.01). Conclusion: Based on the analyzed data, the median Cest was 37.2 cmH2O. Inspiratory pause may affect pulmonary mechanics values in patients with pulmonary affections due to the multicompartmental properties of the lung parenchyma, indicating a possible heterogeneity.
Keywords
References
1. Zhou JX, Yang YL, Li HL, Chen GQ, He X, Sun XM, et al. Respiratory Mechanics. In: Zhou JX, Chen GQ, Li HL, Zhang L, editors. Respiratory monitoring in mechanical ventilation. Singapore: Springer; 2021. p. 35-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9770-1_2.
2. Gertler R. Respiratory mechanics. Anesthesiol Clin. 2021;39(3) :415-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. anclin.2021.04.003.
3. Tobin MJ. Principles and practice of mechanical ventilation. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2012.
4. Wu HP, Leu SW, Lin SW, Hung CY, Chen NH, Hu HC, et al. Role of Changes in Driving Pressure and Mechanical Power in Predicting Mortality in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Diagnostics. 2023;13(7):1226. https:// doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071226. PMid:37046444.
5. Roca O, Goligher EC, Amato MBP. Driving pressure: applying the concept at the bedside. Intensive Care Med. 2023;49(8):991-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023- 07071-2.
6. Amato MBP, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, Brochard L, Costa ELV, Schoenfeld DA, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):747-55. https://doi.org/10.1056/ NEJMsa1410639. PMid:25693014.
7. Menezes Jr JN, Silva LM, Santos LJM, Correia HF, Lopes W, Silva VEP, et al. Reproducibility of respiratory mechanics measurements in patients on invasive mechanical ventilation. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020;32(3):398-404. PMid:33053029.
8. Reddy MP, Subramaniam A, Chua C, Ling RR, Anstey C, Ramanathan K, et al. Respiratory system mechanics, gas exchange, and outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10(12):1178-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S2213-2600(22)00393-9.
9. Kock KS, Maurici R. Respiratory mechanics, ventilator-associated pneumonia and outcomes in intensive care unit. World J Crit Care Med. 2018;7(1):24-30. https://doi. org/10.5492/wjccm.v7.i1.24. PMid:29430405.
10. Oliveira JPA, Costa ACT, Lopes AJ, Ferreira AS, Reis LFF. Fatores associados à mortalidade em pacientes ventilados mecanicamente com síndrome respiratória aguda grave por evolução da COVID-19. Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(1):19-30. https://doi.org/10.5935/2965-2774.20230203-pt.
11. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bull World Health Org. 2007;85:867-72. https://doi.org/10.2471/ BLT.07.045120.
12. Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT, Wheeler A. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: 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):1301-8. https://doi.org/10.1056/ NEJM200005043421801. PMid:10793162.
13. Demir S. Comparison of normality tests in terms of sample sizes under different skewness and kurtosis coefficients. Int J Assess Tool Educ. 2022;9(2):397-409. https://doi. org/10.21449/ijate.1101295.
14. Abplanalp LA, Ionescu F, Calvo-Ayala E, Yu L, Nair GB. Static respiratory system compliance as a predictor of extubation failure in patients with acute respiratory failure. Lung. 2023;201(3):309-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00408-023- 00625-7. PMid:37300706.
15. Duarte HB, Santos LJM, Menezes JDN Jr, Santos TJC, Dos Santos TR, Reiz RLO, et al. Prediction of static compliance of the respiratory system based on anthropometric measurements in patients on mechanical ventilation: a cross-sectional pragmatic study. Respir Med. 2025;248:108368. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rmed.2025.108368. PMid:40976449.
16. Xie J, Jin F, Pan C, Liu S, Liu L, Xu J, et al. The effects of low tidal ventilation on lung strain correlate with respiratory system compliance. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):23. https://doi. org/10.1186/s13054-017-1600-x. PMid:28159013.
17. Hess DR. Respiratory mechanics in mechanically ventilated patients. Respir Care. 2014;59(11):1773-94. https://doi. org/10.4187/respcare.03410. PMid:25336536.
18. Aguirre-Bermeo H, Morán I, Bottiroli M, Italiano S, Parrilla FJ, Plazolles E, et al. End-inspiratory pause prolongation in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: effects on gas exchange and mechanics. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-016-0183-z. PMid:27558174.
19. López-Herrera D, De La Matta M. Influence of the end inspiratory pause on respiratory mechanics and tidal gas distribution of surgical patients ventilated under a tailored open lung approach strategy: a randomised, crossover trial. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2022;41(2):101038. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.accpm.2022.101038. PMid:35183806.
20. Uttman L, Jonson B. A prolonged postinspiratory pause enhances CO 2 elimination by reducing airway dead space. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2003;23(5):252-6. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1475-097X.2003.00498.x. PMid:12950321.
21. Simonis FD, Barbas CSV, Artigas-Raventós A, Canet J, Determann RM, Anstey J, et al. Potentially modifiable respiratory variables contributing to outcome in ICU patients without ARDS: a secondary analysis of PRoVENT. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13613-018-0385-7. PMid:29564726.
Submitted date:
09/15/2025
Accepted date:
03/30/2026
Facebook
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Reddit
Email