Gillette M A, Hess D R
Pulmonary and Critical Care Unit, Bullfinch 148, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston MA 02114-2696, USA.
Respir Care. 2001 Feb;46(2):130-48.
Traditional ventilator management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), emphasizing normalization of blood gases, promoted high rates of conventional barotrauma. Research revealed a broader range of ventilator-induced lung injury, physiologically and histopathologically indistinguishable from ARDS itself. It is now known that overdistention and cyclic inflation of injured lung can exacerbate lung injury and probably promote systemic inflammation, effects minimized by low tidal volumes/plateau pressures and by application of positive end-expiratory pressure. No compelling data suggest a safe interval for nonprotective ventilation in humans; historically defined "low" tidal volumes may remain excessive for certain patients. Protective ventilation, however, entails carbon dioxide accumulation ("permissive hypercapnia"). Despite extensive study, debate remains, even over whether consequent respiratory acidosis is harmful, tolerable with physiologic adaptation, or intrinsically adaptive. Its gross systemic effects seem generally tolerated by critically ill patients; however, subsets, including those with ischemic heart disease, left or right heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, or cranial injury, may be at higher risk. In controlled trials demonstrating mortality benefit from lung-protective ventilation, acidosis was more tightly controlled than in negative studies. Decreased acidosis-associated dyspnea probably explains reduced use of sedatives and paralytics noted in those trials. There may thus be disparate goals in ARDS management: rapid institution of a restrictive ventilatory strategy, and avoidance of significant acidosis. We review data pertaining to ARDS physiology, ventilator-induced lung injury, lung-protective ventilatory strategies, and the physiology of respiratory acidosis. Tracheal gas insufflation is considered as a means to reconcile the clinical goals of ventilatory reduction and control of acidosis.
急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的传统通气管理强调血气正常化,导致传统气压伤的发生率较高。研究发现了范围更广的呼吸机诱导性肺损伤,在生理和组织病理学上与ARDS本身难以区分。现在已知,受伤肺的过度扩张和周期性充气会加剧肺损伤,并可能促进全身炎症,低潮气量/平台压以及应用呼气末正压可将这些影响降至最低。没有令人信服的数据表明人类进行非保护性通气的安全间隔;历史上定义的“低”潮气量对某些患者来说可能仍然过高。然而,保护性通气会导致二氧化碳蓄积(“允许性高碳酸血症”)。尽管进行了广泛研究,但仍存在争议,甚至关于随之而来的呼吸性酸中毒是否有害、生理适应后是否可耐受或是否具有内在适应性也存在争议。重症患者一般能耐受其总体的全身影响;然而,包括患有缺血性心脏病、左心或右心衰竭、肺动脉高压或颅脑损伤的患者在内的某些亚组可能风险更高。在显示肺保护性通气可降低死亡率的对照试验中,酸中毒的控制比阴性研究更为严格。酸中毒相关的呼吸困难减轻可能解释了这些试验中镇静剂和麻痹剂使用减少的原因。因此,ARDS的管理可能有不同的目标:迅速采用限制性通气策略,以及避免严重酸中毒。我们综述了与ARDS生理学、呼吸机诱导性肺损伤、肺保护性通气策略以及呼吸性酸中毒生理学相关的数据。气管内吹气被认为是一种协调减少通气和控制酸中毒这两个临床目标的方法。