Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Critical Care Research and Practice
Volume 2012, Article ID 204314, 8 pages
Research Article

Human versus Computer Controlled Selection of Ventilator Settings: An Evaluation of Adaptive Support Ventilation and Mid-Frequency Ventilation

1Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Slot 555, Little Rock, AR 77205, USA
2Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A90, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA
3Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40536-0284, USA
4Department of Medicine, Scott and White and Texas A and M Health Science Center College of Medicine, 2401 South 31st Street, Temple, TX 76508, USA

Received 24 May 2012; Accepted 7 September 2012

Academic Editor: Samir Sakka

Copyright © 2012 Eduardo Mireles-Cabodevila et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Background. There are modes of mechanical ventilation that can select ventilator settings with computer controlled algorithms (targeting schemes). Two examples are adaptive support ventilation (ASV) and mid-frequency ventilation (MFV). We studied how different clinician-chosen ventilator settings are from these computer algorithms under different scenarios. Methods. A survey of critical care clinicians provided reference ventilator settings for a 70 kg paralyzed patient in five clinical/physiological scenarios. The survey-derived values for minute ventilation and minute alveolar ventilation were used as goals for ASV and MFV, respectively. A lung simulator programmed with each scenario’s respiratory system characteristics was ventilated using the clinician, ASV, and MFV settings. Results. Tidal volumes ranged from 6.1 to 8.3 mL/kg for the clinician, 6.7 to 11.9 mL/kg for ASV, and 3.5 to 9.9 mL/kg for MFV. Inspiratory pressures were lower for ASV and MFV. Clinician-selected tidal volumes were similar to the ASV settings for all scenarios except for asthma, in which the tidal volumes were larger for ASV and MFV. MFV delivered the same alveolar minute ventilation with higher end expiratory and lower end inspiratory volumes. Conclusions. There are differences and similarities among initial ventilator settings selected by humans and computers for various clinical scenarios. The ventilation outcomes are the result of the lung physiological characteristics and their interaction with the targeting scheme.