Williams P, Kratohvil J, Ritz R, Hess D R, Kacmarek R M
Respiratory Care Services, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Respir Care. 2000 Oct;45(10):1169-81.
Pressure support (PS) has been widely studied in both patients and lung models, but there is little data available evaluating pressure assist/control (P A/C, frequently referred to as PCV) and no data comparing the operational capabilities of these two modes on the newest generation of ICU ventilators. We used a spontaneously breathing lung model to evaluate the response of the following new generation ventilators to varying inspiratory demand in both PS and P A/C: Bear 1000, Dräger Evita 4, Hamilton Galileo, Nellcor Puritan-Bennett 840 and 740, Siemens Servo 300A, TBird AVS.
A bellows-in-a-box lung model was set at a respiratory rate of 12 breaths/min, inspiratory time of 1.0 second, and peak inspiratory flows (modified square wave) of 40, 60, and 80 L/min. Each ventilator was set at three levels of PS and P A/C: 10, 15, and 20 cm H(2)O. On all ventilators, flow-triggering was set as sensitive as possible without causing self-triggering.
Trigger pressure, trigger pressure-time product, inspiratory trigger time delay, ventilator-delivered peak flow, inspiratory area as a percent of the ideal inspiratory area, expiratory time delay, supraplateau expiratory pressure change, and expiratory area all varied among ventilators and at different lung model peak flows (p < 0.01 and >/= 10% difference). However, PS and P A/C on a given ventilator only differed with regard to expiratory variables (p < 0. 01 and >/= 10% difference).
In a given ventilator little difference exists in gas delivery and response variables between PS and P A/C, but performance differences do exist among the ventilators evaluated. Ventilator performance is diminished at high lung model peak flows and low pressure settings. (I)), whereas PS gives control over ending inspiration to the patient. What has not been clearly defined is the gas delivery and ventilator response differences, if any, between these two (PS and P A/C) pressure targeted assist modes. Most new generation intensive care unit (ICU) ventilators provide both pressure support (PS) and pressure assist/control (P A/C) ventilation.19,20 The specific operational difference between these two modes is the mechanism that transitions inspiration to expiration. With pressure support the primary mechanism is a decrease in peak inspiratory flow to a predetermined level, whereas with P A/C mechanical T(I) is preset.19,20 We compared the operation of seven of the newest generation ICU ventilators in a spontaneously breathing lung model in both PS and P A/C. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in variables assessed between PS and P A/C except for the transition to expiration and that there would be no difference in response among ventilators evaluated.
压力支持(PS)已在患者和肺模型中得到广泛研究,但评估压力辅助/控制(P A/C,常称为PCV)的数据很少,且没有数据比较这两种模式在最新一代重症监护病房(ICU)呼吸机上的操作能力。我们使用自主呼吸肺模型来评估以下新一代呼吸机在PS和P A/C模式下对不同吸气需求的反应:Bear 1000、德尔格Evita 4、汉密尔顿伽利略、伟康Puritan-Bennett 840和740、西门子Servo 300A、TBird AVS。
将箱式风箱肺模型设置为呼吸频率12次/分钟、吸气时间1.0秒、吸气峰流速(改良方波)分别为40、60和80升/分钟。每台呼吸机设置为PS和P A/C的三个水平:10、15和20厘米水柱。在所有呼吸机上,将流量触发设置得尽可能敏感而不引起自触发。
触发压力、触发压力-时间乘积、吸气触发时间延迟、呼吸机输送的峰流速、吸气面积占理想吸气面积的百分比、呼气时间延迟、平台期后呼气压力变化以及呼气面积在不同呼吸机和不同肺模型峰流速下均有变化(p<0.01且差异≥10%)。然而,给定呼吸机上的PS和P A/C仅在呼气变量方面存在差异(p<0.01且差异≥10%)。
在给定的呼吸机中,PS和P A/C在气体输送和反应变量方面差异不大,但在所评估的呼吸机之间确实存在性能差异。在高肺模型峰流速和低压力设置下,呼吸机性能会下降。(I)),而PS则将吸气的结束控制权交给患者。尚未明确界定的是这两种(PS和P A/C)压力目标辅助模式之间是否存在气体输送和呼吸机反应差异。大多数新一代重症监护病房(ICU)呼吸机都提供压力支持(PS)和压力辅助/控制(P A/C)通气。19,20这两种模式之间的具体操作差异在于吸气向呼气转换的机制。在压力支持模式下,主要机制是吸气峰流速降至预定水平,而在P A/C模式下,机械吸气时间(T(I))是预设的。19,20我们在自主呼吸肺模型中比较了七台最新一代ICU呼吸机在PS和P A/C模式下的操作。我们假设,除了呼气转换外,PS和P A/C之间评估的变量不会有差异,并且所评估的呼吸机之间的反应也不会有差异。