呼气末正压
医学
充氧
麻醉
死区
通风(建筑)
潮气量
机械通风
肺
肺顺应性
灌注
心脏病学
内科学
呼吸系统
机械工程
工程类
作者
Thomas Muders,Henning Luepschen,T. Meier,Andreas W. Reske,Jörg Zinserling,Stefan Kreyer,Robert Pikkemaat,Enn Maripu,Steffen Leonhardt,Göran Hedenstierna,Christian Putensen,Hermann Wrigge
出处
期刊:Anesthesiology
[Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer)]
日期:2020-04-01
卷期号:132 (4): 808-824
被引量:9
标识
DOI:10.1097/aln.0000000000003151
摘要
Abstract Background In acute respiratory failure elevated intraabdominal pressure aggravates lung collapse, tidal recruitment, and ventilation inhomogeneity. Low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may promote lung collapse and intrapulmonary shunting, whereas high PEEP may increase dead space by inspiratory overdistension. The authors hypothesized that an electrical impedance tomography–guided PEEP approach minimizing tidal recruitment improves regional ventilation and perfusion matching when compared to a table-based low PEEP/no recruitment and an oxygenation-guided high PEEP/full recruitment strategy in a hybrid model of lung injury and elevated intraabdominal pressure. Methods In 15 pigs with oleic acid–induced lung injury intraabdominal pressure was increased by intraabdominal saline infusion. PEEP was set in randomized order: (1) guided by a PEEP/inspired oxygen fraction table, without recruitment maneuver; (2) minimizing tidal recruitment guided by electrical impedance tomography after a recruitment maneuver; and (3) maximizing oxygenation after a recruitment maneuver. Single photon emission computed tomography was used to analyze regional ventilation, perfusion, and aeration. Primary outcome measures were differences in PEEP levels and regional ventilation/perfusion matching. Results Resulting PEEP levels were different (mean ± SD) with (1) table PEEP: 11 ± 3 cm H2O; (2) minimal tidal recruitment PEEP: 22 ± 3 cm H2O; and (3) maximal oxygenation PEEP: 25 ± 4 cm H2O; P < 0.001. Table PEEP without recruitment maneuver caused highest lung collapse (28 ± 11% vs. 5 ± 5% vs. 4 ± 4%; P < 0.001), shunt perfusion (3.2 ± 0.8 l/min vs. 1.0 ± 0.8 l/min vs. 0.7 ± 0.6 l/min; P < 0.001) and dead space ventilation (2.9 ± 1.0 l/min vs. 1.5 ± 0.7 l/min vs. 1.7 ± 0.8 l/min; P < 0.001). Although resulting in different PEEP levels, minimal tidal recruitment and maximal oxygenation PEEP, both following a recruitment maneuver, had similar effects on regional ventilation/perfusion matching. Conclusions When compared to table PEEP without a recruitment maneuver, both minimal tidal recruitment PEEP and maximal oxygenation PEEP following a recruitment maneuver decreased shunting and dead space ventilation, and the effects of minimal tidal recruitment PEEP and maximal oxygenation PEEP were comparable. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI