Castañón-González Jorge A, León-Gutiérrez Marco Antonio, Gallegos-Pérez Humberto, Pech-Quijano Jorge, Martínez-Gutíerrez Miguel, Olvera-Chávez Alfredo
Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos y Medicina Crítica, Hospital de Especialidades "Dr. Bernardo Sepúlveda Gutiérrez," Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, IMSS, México, D.F. México.
Cir Cir. 2003 Sep-Oct;71(5):374-8.
To compare in a crossover study pulmonary mechanics, oxigenation index (PaO(2)/FiO(2)), and partial pressure of CO(2) in arterial blood (PaCO(2)) in patients with mechanical ventilation in two controlled ventilatory modes.
Intensive care unit of a university affiliated hospital.
Prospective crossover clinical trial.
A total 114 consecutive patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) under controlled mechanical ventilation with SaO(2) >90% and FiO(2) <0.5 and assigned by random allocation to either volume control (VC) and constant inspiratory flow (square flow curve) (group I) or pressure control mode (PC) (group II). Both groups were ventilated with tidal volume (Vt) of 7 ml/kg, respiratory rate (RR) 14/min, inspiratory-expiratory ratio 1:2 (I:E), PEEP 5 cm H(2)O, and FiO(2) 0.4. After 15 min of mechanical ventilation, pulmonary mechanics, oxygenation index (OI), and PaCO(2) were measured and registered, and ventilatory mode was switched to PC mode in group I and to VC in group II, maintaining the same ventilator settings. Pulmonary mechanics, OI, and PaCO(2) were again registered after 15 min of ventilation.
Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) was higher in VC than in PC (31.5 vs 26 cm H(2)O), which resulted in a significant increase in transpulmonary pressure amplitude difference (DP) (25 vs 19 cm H(2)O). Mean airway pressure (MAP) and OI were lower in VC than in PC (11.5 vs 12 cm H(2)O, and 198.5 vs 215, respectively). Dynamic compliance (DynC) was lower in VC than in PC (20 vs 26 ml/cm H(2)O), p < 0.05 for all values. At constant ventilator settings in the same patient, PC and not VC ventilation decreases PIP (which results in smaller transpulmonary pressure amplitude difference), increases MAP, and DynC and improves the oxygenation index.
在一项交叉研究中比较两种控制通气模式下机械通气患者的肺力学、氧合指数(PaO₂/FiO₂)和动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO₂)。
一所大学附属医院的重症监护病房。
前瞻性交叉临床试验。
共有114例连续患者在机械通气控制下入住重症监护病房(ICU),氧饱和度(SaO₂)>90%,吸入氧浓度(FiO₂)<0.5,通过随机分配分为容量控制(VC)和恒定吸气流量(方波流量曲线)组(I组)或压力控制模式(PC)组(II组)。两组均采用潮气量(Vt)7 ml/kg、呼吸频率(RR)14次/分钟、吸呼比1:2(I:E)、呼气末正压(PEEP)5 cm H₂O和FiO₂ 0.4进行通气。机械通气15分钟后,测量并记录肺力学、氧合指数(OI)和PaCO₂,I组通气模式切换为PC模式,II组切换为VC模式,保持相同的呼吸机设置。通气15分钟后再次记录肺力学、OI和PaCO₂。
VC组的吸气峰压(PIP)高于PC组(31.5 vs 26 cm H₂O),这导致跨肺压幅度差(DP)显著增加(25 vs 19 cm H₂O)。VC组的平均气道压(MAP)和OI低于PC组(分别为11.5 vs 12 cm H₂O和198.5 vs 215)。VC组的动态顺应性(DynC)低于PC组(20 vs 26 ml/cm H₂O),所有数值的p<0.05。在同一患者呼吸机设置不变的情况下,PC通气而非VC通气可降低PIP(从而导致跨肺压幅度差更小),增加MAP和DynC,并改善氧合指数。