Laffey John G, O'Croinin Donall, McLoughlin Paul, Kavanagh Brian P
Department of Anaesthesia, University College Hospital, Galway and Clinical Sciences Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland,
Intensive Care Med. 2004 Mar;30(3):347-56. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-2051-1. Epub 2004 Jan 14.
"Permissive hypercapnia" is an inherent element of accepted protective lung ventilation. However, there are no clinical data evaluating the efficacy of hypercapnia per se, independent of ventilator strategy. In the absence of such data, it is necessary to determine whether the potential exists for an active role for hypercapnia, distinct from the demonstrated benefits of reduced lung stretch. In this review, we consider four key issues. First, we consider the evidence that protective lung ventilatory strategies improve survival and we explore current paradigms regarding the mechanisms underlying these effects. Second, we examine whether hypercapnic acidosis may have effects that are additive to the effects of protective ventilation. Third, we consider whether direct elevation of CO(2), in the absence of protective ventilation, is beneficial or deleterious. Fourth, we address the current evidence regarding the buffering of hypercapnic acidosis in ARDS. These perspectives reveal that the potential exists for hypercapnia to exert beneficial effects in the clinical context. Direct administration of CO(2) is protective in multiple models of acute lung and systemic injury. Nevertheless, several specific concerns remain regarding the safety of hypercapnia. At present, protective ventilatory strategies that involve hypercapnia are clinically acceptable, provided the clinician is primarily targeting reduced tidal stretch. There are insufficient clinical data to suggest that hypercapnia per se should be independently induced, nor do outcome data exist to support the practice of buffering hypercapnic acidosis. Rapidly advancing basic scientific investigations should better delineate the advantages, disadvantages, and optimal use of hypercapnia in ARDS.
“允许性高碳酸血症”是公认的肺保护性通气的固有要素。然而,尚无评估高碳酸血症本身疗效的临床数据,这些数据独立于通气策略。在缺乏此类数据的情况下,有必要确定高碳酸血症是否存在独立于已证实的减少肺牵张益处的积极作用。在本综述中,我们考虑四个关键问题。首先,我们考虑肺保护性通气策略改善生存率的证据,并探讨关于这些效应潜在机制的当前范式。其次,我们研究高碳酸性酸中毒的效应是否可能与肺保护性通气的效应相加。第三,我们考虑在没有肺保护性通气的情况下,直接升高二氧化碳是有益还是有害。第四,我们阐述关于急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)中高碳酸性酸中毒缓冲的现有证据。这些观点表明,高碳酸血症在临床环境中存在发挥有益作用的潜力。在多种急性肺损伤和全身损伤模型中,直接给予二氧化碳具有保护作用。然而,关于高碳酸血症的安全性仍存在一些具体问题。目前,涉及高碳酸血症的肺保护性通气策略在临床上是可接受的,前提是临床医生主要目标是减少潮气量牵张。尚无足够的临床数据表明应单独诱导高碳酸血症本身,也不存在支持缓冲高碳酸性酸中毒做法的结局数据。快速发展的基础科学研究应更好地阐明高碳酸血症在ARDS中的优点、缺点和最佳应用。