Hess D, McCurdy S, Simmons M
York Hospital, PA.
Respir Care. 1991 Oct;36(10):1113-8.
Although the concept of ventilator circuit compression is well known, it is not fully appreciated clinically. We compared the compression volume of five adult disposable ventilator circuits and a nondisposable circuit.
Five brands of disposable circuits (Inspiron, Intertech, Marquest, Seamless, and U-Mid) and one nondisposable brand (Bennett) were used. The circuits were attached to the outlet of a Bennett MA-1 ventilator in the standard manner, and the filter and humidifier were bypassed to eliminate their contribution to compression volume. The ventilator delivered 1 L of gas to a Michigan Instruments Test Training Lung at a flow of 60 L/min and a rate of 12/min. A valve system was placed between the Y-connector and the TTL to partition circuit compression volume from the volume delivered to the test lung. The compression factor was calculated by dividing the compression volume by the ventilating pressure. Five compliance settings were used on the TTL (0.1, 0.05, 0.03, 0.02, and 0.015 L/cm) to simulate different ventilating pressures. Pressure at the Y-connector, compressible volume, and volume delivered to the TTL were measured using a calibrated Timeter RT200 volume-pressure analyzer. Five measurements were made with each brand. A new circuit was used for each run with a disposable circuit, and a different circuit from the respiratory care department stock was used for each run with a nondisposable circuit.
There were significant differences between the compression factors at different TTL compliance settings (p less than 0.001), and brands of circuits evaluated (p less than 0.001). There was a significant interaction effect for compression factors between TTL compliance setting and circuit brands (p less than 0.001). The compression factors for all disposable circuits were greater than the compression factors for the nondisposable circuits (p less than 0.05).
There were differences in circuit compression factors as a function of the ventilating pressure and the brand of circuit. Although these differences are too small to be clinically important in many cases, they may be important during ventilation with low tidal volumes and high pressures.
尽管呼吸机回路压缩的概念广为人知,但在临床上尚未得到充分认识。我们比较了五种成人一次性呼吸机回路和一种非一次性回路的压缩量。
使用了五个品牌的一次性回路(Inspiron、Intertech、Marquest、Seamless和U-Mid)和一个非一次性品牌(Bennett)。回路以标准方式连接到Bennett MA-1呼吸机的出口,绕过过滤器和加湿器以消除它们对压缩量的影响。呼吸机以60 L/min的流速和12次/分钟的频率向密歇根仪器测试训练肺输送1 L气体。在Y形接头和测试训练肺之间放置一个阀门系统,以将回路压缩量与输送到测试肺的气量区分开来。压缩系数通过将压缩量除以通气压力来计算。在测试训练肺上使用了五种顺应性设置(0.1、0.05、0.03、0.02和0.015 L/cm)来模拟不同的通气压力。使用校准的Timeter RT200体积压力分析仪测量Y形接头处的压力、可压缩体积和输送到测试训练肺的体积。每个品牌进行五次测量。使用一次性回路时,每次运行使用一个新回路;使用非一次性回路时,每次运行使用呼吸护理部门库存中的不同回路。
不同测试训练肺顺应性设置下的压缩系数之间存在显著差异(p<0.001),所评估的回路品牌之间也存在显著差异(p<0.001)。测试训练肺顺应性设置和回路品牌之间的压缩系数存在显著的交互作用(p<0.001)。所有一次性回路的压缩系数均大于非一次性回路的压缩系数(p<0.05)。
回路压缩系数因通气压力和回路品牌而异。尽管在许多情况下这些差异太小,在临床上无重要意义,但在低潮气量和高压通气期间可能很重要。