Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

LSTM-based model showed improved ventilator triggering metrics compared to Auto-Trak in a small trial.

LSTM-based model showed improved ventilator triggering metrics compared to Auto-Trak in a small tria…
Photo by Cht Gsml / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Note that an LSTM-based model showed improved ventilator triggering metrics in a small trial with no safety data reported.

This clinical trial assessed an LSTM-based model for ventilator triggering control against an Auto-Trak model. The study population comprised 10 volunteers and 5 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Specific study settings and follow-up durations were not reported.

Primary and secondary outcomes included accuracy, F1 score, average trigger error, triggering compatibility with neuronal respiration, triggering in the 33%-box, and the PVI index. In test data, the LSTM model achieved 97% accuracy and an F1 score. The average trigger error was less than 2.20%.

Regarding specific metrics, the LSTM model showed 78.6% triggering compatibility with neuronal respiration in compliance mode, compared to 74.2% for the Auto-Trak model. For triggering in the 33%-box, the LSTM model scored 60.6% versus 49.0% for the comparator. The PVI index was 36.5% for the LSTM model and 52.9% for the Auto-Trak model, indicating significantly less error for the LSTM approach.

Safety data, including adverse events, serious adverse events, discontinuations, and tolerability, were not reported. No limitations were explicitly listed in the provided data, though the small sample size is a notable constraint. Funding sources and conflicts of interest were not reported. The practice relevance and specific causality notes were not provided. These results suggest potential benefits but cannot yet inform standard care without further validation.

Study Details

EvidenceLevel 5
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Background: Patient-ventilator synchrony, an essential prerequisite for non-invasive mechanical ventilation, requires an accurate matching of every phase of the respiration between patient and the ventilator. Methods: We developed a long short-term memory (LSTM)-based model that can predict the inspiratory and expiratory time of the patient. This model consisted of two hidden layers, each with eight LSTM units, and was trained using a dataset of approximately 27000 of 500-ms-long flow signals that captured both inspiratory and expiratory events. Results: The LSTM model achieved 97% accuracy and F1 score in the test data, and the average trigger error was less than 2.20%. In the first trial, 10 volunteers were enrolled. In "Compliance" mode, 78.6% of the triggering by the LSTM model was compatible with neuronal respiration, which was higher than Auto-Trak model (74.2%). Auto-Trak model performed marginally better in the modes of pressure support = 5 and 10 cmH2O. Considering the success in the first clinical trial, we further tested the models by including five patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The LSTM model exhibited 60.6% of the triggering in the 33%-box, which is better than 49.0% of Auto-Trak model. And the PVI index of the LSTM model was significantly less than Auto-Trak model (36.5% vs 52.9%). Conclusions: Overall, the LSTM model performed comparable to, or even better than, Auto-Trak model in both latency and PVI index. While other mathematical models have been developed, our model was effectively embedded in the chip to control the triggering of ventilator. Trial registration: Approval Number: 2023ZDSYLL348-P01; Approval Date: 28/09/2023. Clinical Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR2500097446; Registration Date: 19/02/2025.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.