Session expired

Due to inactivity your session has expired. Please login again.

Go to homepage

EMS_Prehospital-team_Contact-us

¿Hay algo que haya despertado su interés? Llámenos

Estaremos encantados de ayudarle y nos pondremos en contacto con usted lo antes posible. 
HM_Logo_White_RGB_Website

Do you want to switch to ICU?

Switch
 Tecnologías

ASV: Adaptive Support Ventilation®.

Soporte para usted y sus pacientes

"" ""

Mucho más que un modo. Así es ASV

ASV es un modo inteligente para la ventilación no invasiva de pacientes adultos y pediátricos. Los parámetros de ventilación se ajustan de forma continua en tiempo real para proporcionar el nivel exacto de soporte que necesita cada paciente. Ni más ni menos.

Con un diseño concebido para ofrecer velocidad y seguridad, ASV combina la ventilación basada en pruebas con una capacidad de adaptación en tiempo real. En entornos críticos en los que cada segundo cuenta, ASV ofrece precisión técnica y brinda total tranquilidad.

Las ventajas de ASV para la atención prehospitalaria

Adaptable a cualquier tipo de paciente

Proporciona soporte a pacientes adultos y pediátricos, tanto a los que respiran espontáneamente como a los que necesitan asistencia ventilatoria completa.

Mejora la seguridad del paciente

ASV cuenta con mecanismos de seguridad para evitar problemas como la hiperventilación, la hipoventilación y la apnea (Arnal JM, Wysocki M, Novotni D, et al. Safety and efficacy of a fully closed-loop control ventilation (IntelliVent-ASV®) in sedated ICU patients with acute respiratory failure: a prospective randomized crossover study. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(5):781-787. doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2548-61, Kirakli C, Naz I, Ediboglu O, Tatar D, Budak A, Tellioglu E. A randomized controlled trial comparing the ventilation duration between adaptive support ventilation and pressure assist/control ventilation in medical patients in the ICU. Chest. 2015;147(6):1503-1509. doi:10.1378/chest.14-25992, Brunner JX, Iotti GA. Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV). Minerva Anestesiol. 2002;68(5):365-368. 3). 

Esto también contribuye a prevenir complicaciones como la taquipnea, la presión positiva al final de la espiración intrínseca (AutoPEEP) y la ventilación excesiva del espacio muerto (Sulemanji D, Marchese A, Garbarini P, Wysocki M, Kacmarek RM. Adaptive support ventilation: an appropriate mechanical ventilation strategy for acute respiratory distress syndrome? Anesthesiology. 2009;111(4):863-870. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181b55f8f4).

Reduce la carga cognitiva

Reduce la cantidad de cambios necesarios en los ajustes del respirador para que pueda centrarse en otros aspectos importantes de la atención al paciente (Kirakli C, Naz I, Ediboglu O, Tatar D, Budak A, Tellioglu E. A randomized controlled trial comparing the ventilation duration between adaptive support ventilation and pressure assist/control ventilation in medical patients in the ICU. Chest. 2015;147(6):1503-1509. doi:10.1378/chest.14-25992, Moradian ST, Saeid Y, Ebadi A, Hemmat A, Ghiasi MS. Adaptive Support Ventilation Reduces the Incidence of Atelectasis in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Pain Med. 2017;7(3):e44619. Published 2017 Apr 22. doi:10.5812/aapm.446195).

Adaptación continua al paciente

Cuando el estado del paciente cambia, el modo ASV adapta automáticamente el nivel de soporte.
 

Aumenta la asistencia cuando el paciente tiene dificultad para respirar y la reduce cuando comienza a respirar con más facilidad por sí mismo.
""

Así de fácil. El flujo de ASV en 4 pasos

  1. Configuración sencilla: ajuste el sexo y la altura del paciente, y defina la ventilación por minuto deseada.
  2. Monitorización continua: ASV controla el volumen tidal, la frecuencia respiratoria, la presión en la vía aérea y mucho más.
  3. Ajuste automático: ASV modula la presión inspiratoria y la frecuencia para mantener la ventilación objetivo.
  4. Respuesta adaptable: ASV reduce la asistencia respiratoria cuando aumenta el esfuerzo de respiración espontánea o la aumenta cuando el paciente requiere más soporte.
     
Guía de configuración rápida de ASV (PDF) del HAMILTON-T1 (PDF)
Kyle Drisse

Testimonios de clientes

El modo ASV resulta especialmente práctico en pacientes con múltiples traumatismos, en los que hay atender numerosos frentes. Es un alivio poder instalar el respirador y dejar que el ASV gestione al paciente desde el punto de vista pulmonar. Además, es muy fácil de configurar.

Kyle Drisse

Sanitario de vuelo de cuidados intensivos
Life Link III, Minnesota, EE. UU.

Disponibilidad

ASV está disponible como modo estándar en todos los dispositivos HAMILTON-T1 y HAMILTON-EM7.

HAMILTON-T1

HAMILTON-T1
HAMILTON-T1 para las Fuerzas Armadas

HAMILTON-T1 para las Fuerzas Armadas
HAMILTON-EM7

HAMILTON-EM7

Notas al pie

Referencias

  1. 1. Arnal JM, Wysocki M, Novotni D, et al. Safety and efficacy of a fully closed-loop control ventilation (IntelliVent-ASV®) in sedated ICU patients with acute respiratory failure: a prospective randomized crossover study. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(5):781-787. doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2548-6
  2. 2. Kirakli C, Naz I, Ediboglu O, Tatar D, Budak A, Tellioglu E. A randomized controlled trial comparing the ventilation duration between adaptive support ventilation and pressure assist/control ventilation in medical patients in the ICU. Chest. 2015;147(6):1503-1509. doi:10.1378/chest.14-2599
  3. 3. Brunner JX, Iotti GA. Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV). Minerva Anestesiol. 2002;68(5):365-368.
  4. 4. Sulemanji D, Marchese A, Garbarini P, Wysocki M, Kacmarek RM. Adaptive support ventilation: an appropriate mechanical ventilation strategy for acute respiratory distress syndrome?. Anesthesiology. 2009;111(4):863-870. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181b55f8f
  5. 5. Moradian ST, Saeid Y, Ebadi A, Hemmat A, Ghiasi MS. Adaptive Support Ventilation Reduces the Incidence of Atelectasis in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Pain Med. 2017;7(3):e44619. Published 2017 Apr 22. doi:10.5812/aapm.44619

Safety and efficacy of a fully closed-loop control ventilation (IntelliVent-ASV®) in sedated ICU patients with acute respiratory failure: a prospective randomized crossover study.

Arnal JM, Wysocki M, Novotni D, et al. Safety and efficacy of a fully closed-loop control ventilation (IntelliVent-ASV®) in sedated ICU patients with acute respiratory failure: a prospective randomized crossover study. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(5):781-787. doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2548-6

PURPOSE IntelliVent-ASV(®) is a development of adaptive support ventilation (ASV) that automatically adjusts ventilation and oxygenation parameters. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of IntelliVent-ASV(®) in sedated intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute respiratory failure. METHODS This prospective randomized crossover comparative study was conducted in a 12-bed ICU in a general hospital. Two periods of 2 h of ventilation in randomly applied ASV or IntelliVent-ASV(®) were compared in 50 sedated, passively ventilated patients. Tidal volume (V(T)), respiratory rate (RR), inspiratory pressure (P(INSP)), SpO(2) and E(T)CO(2) were continuously monitored and recorded breath by breath. Mean values over the 2-h period were calculated. Respiratory mechanics, plateau pressure (P(PLAT)) and blood gas exchanges were measured at the end of each period. RESULTS There was no safety issue requiring premature interruption of IntelliVent-ASV(®). Minute ventilation (MV) and V(T) decreased from 7.6 (6.5-9.5) to 6.8 (6.0-8.0) L/min (p < 0.001) and from 8.3 (7.8-9.0) to 8.1 (7.7-8.6) mL/kg PBW (p = 0.003) during IntelliVent-ASV(®) as compared to ASV. P(PLAT) and FiO(2) decreased from 24 (20-29) to 20 (19-25) cmH(2)O (p = 0.005) and from 40 (30-50) to 30 (30-39) % (p < 0.001) during IntelliVent-ASV(®) as compared to ASV. RR, P(INSP), and PEEP decreased as well during IntelliVent-ASV(®) as compared to ASV. Respiratory mechanics, pH, PaO(2) and PaO(2)/FiO(2) ratio were not different but PaCO(2) was slightly higher during IntelliVent-ASV(®) as compared to ASV. CONCLUSIONS In passive patients with acute respiratory failure, IntelliVent-ASV(®) was safe and able to ventilate patients with less pressure, volume and FiO(2) while producing the same results in terms of oxygenation.

A randomized controlled trial comparing the ventilation duration between adaptive support ventilation and pressure assist/control ventilation in medical patients in the ICU.

Kirakli C, Naz I, Ediboglu O, Tatar D, Budak A, Tellioglu E. A randomized controlled trial comparing the ventilation duration between adaptive support ventilation and pressure assist/control ventilation in medical patients in the ICU. Chest. 2015;147(6):1503-1509. doi:10.1378/chest.14-2599

BACKGROUND Adaptive support ventilation (ASV) is a closed loop mode of mechanical ventilation (MV) that provides a target minute ventilation by automatically adapting inspiratory pressure and respiratory rate with the minimum work of breathing on the part of the patient. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of ASV on total MV duration when compared with pressure assist/control ventilation. METHODS Adult medical patients intubated and mechanically ventilated for > 24 h in a medical ICU were randomized to either ASV or pressure assist/control ventilation. Sedation and medical treatment were standardized for each group. Primary outcome was the total MV duration. Secondary outcomes were the weaning duration, number of manual settings of the ventilator, and weaning success rates. RESULTS Two hundred twenty-nine patients were included. Median MV duration until weaning, weaning duration, and total MV duration were significantly shorter in the ASV group (67 [43-94] h vs 92 [61-165] h, P = .003; 2 [2-2] h vs 2 [2-80] h, P = .001; and 4 [2-6] days vs 4 [3-9] days, P = .016, respectively). Patients in the ASV group required fewer total number of manual settings on the ventilator to reach the desired pH and Paco2 levels (2 [1-2] vs 3 [2-5], P < .001). The number of patients extubated successfully on the first attempt was significantly higher in the ASV group (P = .001). Weaning success and mortality at day 28 were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS In medical patients in the ICU, ASV may shorten the duration of weaning and total MV duration with a fewer number of manual ventilator settings. TRIAL REGISTRY ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01472302; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV).

Brunner JX, Iotti GA. Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV). Minerva Anestesiol. 2002;68(5):365-368.

Adaptive Support Ventilation is a novel ventilation mode, a closed-loop control mode that may switch automatically from a PCV-like behaviour to an SIMV-like or PSV-like behaviour, according to the patient status. The operating principles are based on pressure-controlled SIMV with pressure levels and SIMV rate automatically adjusted according to measured lung mechanics at each breath. ASV provided a safe and effective ventilation in patients with normal lungs, restrective or obstructive diseases. In cardiac surgery tracheal extrubation was faster in ASV patients then in controls. In the early weaning phase of acute ventilatory insufficiency the need of resetting ventilator parameters was decreased, suggesting potential benefit for patient care.

Adaptive support ventilation: an appropriate mechanical ventilation strategy for acute respiratory distress syndrome?

Sulemanji D, Marchese A, Garbarini P, Wysocki M, Kacmarek RM. Adaptive support ventilation: an appropriate mechanical ventilation strategy for acute respiratory distress syndrome?. Anesthesiology. 2009;111(4):863-870. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181b55f8f

BACKGROUND Adaptive support ventilation (ASV) allows the clinician to set a maximum plateau pressure (PP) and automatically adjusts tidal volume to keep PP below the set maximum. METHODS ASV was compared to a fixed tidal volume of 6 ml/kg. ASV determined the respiratory rate and tidal volume based on its algorithms. Maximum airway pressure limit was 28 cm H2O in ASV. Six sets of lung mechanics were simulated for two ideal body weights: 60 kg, Group I; 80 kg, Group II. Positive end expiratory pressure was 8, 12, and 16 cm H2O, and target minute volume 120%, 150%, and 200% of predicted minute volume. RESULTS ASV "sacrificed" tidal volume and minute ventilation to maintain PP in 9 (17%) of 54 scenarios in Group I and 20 (37%) of 54 scenarios in Group II. In Group I, the number of scenarios with PP of 28 cm H2O or more was 14 for ASV (26%) and 19 for 6 ml/kg (35%). In these scenarios, mean PP were ASV 28.8 +/- 0.86 cm H2O (min 28, max 30.3) and 6 ml/kg 33.01 +/- 3.48 cm H2O (min 28, max 37.8) (P = 0.000). In group II, the number of scenarios PP of 28 cm H2O or more was 10 for ASV (19%) and 21 for 6 ml/kg (39%). In these cases, mean PP values were ASV 28.78 +/- 0.54 cm H2O (min 28, max 29.6) and 6 ml/kg 32.66 +/- 3.37 cm H2O (min 28.2, max 38.2) (P = 0.000). CONCLUSION In a lung model with varying mechanics, ASV is better able to prevent the potential damaging effects of excessive PP (greater than 28 cm H2O) than a fixed tidal volume of 6 ml/kg by automatically adjusting airway pressure, resulting in a decreased tidal volume.

Adaptive Support Ventilation Reduces the Incidence of Atelectasis in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Moradian ST, Saeid Y, Ebadi A, Hemmat A, Ghiasi MS. Adaptive Support Ventilation Reduces the Incidence of Atelectasis in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Pain Med. 2017;7(3):e44619. Published 2017 Apr 22. doi:10.5812/aapm.44619

BACKGROUND Pulmonary complications are common following cardiac surgery and can lead to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Atelectasis is the most common respiratory complication following cardiac surgery. One of the most important methods for reducing pulmonary complications is supportive care with protective ventilation strategies. In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of adaptive support ventilation (ASV) on atelectasis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS In this single-blind randomized clinical trial, 115 patients, undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, were randomly allocated into 2 groups: 57 patients in the intervention and 58 patients in the control group. Patients in the intervention group were weaned with ASV, while patients in the control group were managed using synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) and pressure support. The incidence of atelectasis, duration of mechanical ventilation, manual ventilator setting, arterial blood gas measurements, and length of hospital stay were compared between the groups. RESULTS The incidence of atelectasis, number of changes in the manual ventilator setting, number of alarms, and length of hospital stay reduced in the intervention group. However, duration of mechanical ventilation and number of ABG measurements were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS The ASV mode could reduce the incidence of atelectasis and length of hospital stay. However, it did not reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation. It seems that ASV is not a superior mode for faster extubation.