Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Pressure vs flow triggering during pressure support ventilation

R Goulet1, D Hess, R M Kacmarek

  • 1Department of Respiratory Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA.

Chest
|June 1, 1997
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A retrospective analysis of phase I and phase I/II investigator-initiated clinical trials conducted by the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK).

ESMO open·2025
Same author

Healthcare-associated infection impact with bioaerosol treatment and COVID-19 mitigation measures.

The Journal of hospital infection·2021
Same author

Functional ultrasound imaging of the spreading activity following optogenetic stimulation of the rat visual cortex.

Scientific reports·2021
Same author

Nelfinavir and lenalidomide/dexamethasone in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma. A phase I/II Trial (SAKK 39/10).

Blood cancer journal·2019
Same author

EPISYNC study: predictors of patient-ventilator asynchrony in a prospective cohort of patients under invasive mechanical ventilation - study protocol.

BMJ open·2019
Same author

Vacuum-assisted early transanal closure of leaking low colorectal anastomoses: the CLEAN study.

Surgical endoscopy·2017
Same journal

Independent Prognostic Contributions of Anti-Ro52 and Anti-MDA5 in Autoimmune-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease.

Chest·2026
Same journal

Lung aeration and gas exchange in SGA or AGA infants with moderate-severe BPD: secondary analysis of the PATH-BPD study.

Chest·2026
Same journal

Lung Cancer Incidence and Mortality after Negative Low-Dose CT Screening Results.

Chest·2026
Same journal

Symptom prevalence and impact on lung cancer risk in the SUMMIT study.

Chest·2026
Same journal

How I Do It: De-escalation of Prostacyclin-Based Therapy in Patients Treated With Sotatercept.

Chest·2026
Same journal

Eisenmenger Syndrome: The Pulmonology Perspective.

Chest·2026
See all related articles

Pressure triggering at -0.5 cm H2O was more sensitive than flow triggering in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation. This finding suggests pressure triggering may be preferable during pressure support ventilation (PSV).

Area of Science:

  • Respiratory physiology
  • Mechanical ventilation
  • Critical care medicine

Background:

  • Traditional mechanical ventilators use pressure or time triggering.
  • Flow triggering is a newer option, with some ventilators offering both pressure and flow triggering.
  • Previous research indicated flow triggering's superiority during continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), but comparisons during pressure support ventilation (PSV) are limited.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the efficacy of pressure versus flow triggering during PSV in adult mechanically ventilated patients.

Main Methods:

  • Ten adult patients on mechanical ventilation in PSV mode were studied.
  • Pressure and flow triggering methods were compared in random order: pressure triggering at -0.5 cm H2O and -1 cm H2O, and flow triggering at 5/2 L/min and 10/3 L/min.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Airway pressure was measured, and trigger sensitivity was assessed using trigger pressure (deltaP), pressure-time product (PTP), and trigger time (deltaT).

    • Main Results:

    • Pressure triggering at -0.5 cm H2O demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity for deltaP, PTP, and deltaT compared to other methods (p<0.001).
    • Significant patient-to-patient variability was observed for deltaP, deltaT, and PTP across all trigger methods (p<0.001).

    Conclusions:

    • For the studied patient group, flow triggering did not prove superior to pressure triggering at -0.5 cm H2O during PSV.
    • Pressure triggering at -0.5 cm H2O appears to be a sensitive method for initiating breaths during PSV.