Xu Hong-yang, Qiu Hai-bo, Yang Yi, Zhou Shao-xia, Sun Hui-ming, Chen Yong-ming
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital and School of Clinical Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, Jiangsu, China.
Zhongguo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2004 Jul;16(7):413-6.
To compare equal pressure method with pressure-volume curve method to quantify the recruited volume.
Acute respiratory distress syndrome sheep model was induced by intravenous infusion 3 microg/kg lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Recruited volume of three different levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP=5, 10, 15 cm H2O) were measured both by pressure-volume curve method and by equal pressure method.
The time needed to measure recruited volume by pressure-volume curve method was 5-6 minutes, which was longer than that of equal pressure method. Recruited volume measured by the two methods increased with PEEP. No significant difference was found between the recruited volume measured by equal pressure method and by equal pressure method at PEEP of 5 cm H2O, they were (25.79+/-20.48) ml vs. (63.26+/-54.57) ml (P>0.05), while recruited volume at PEEP of 10 cm H2O and 15 cm H2O measured by equal pressure method were lower than those measured by the pressure-volume curve method, they were (48.64+/-30.51)ml vs. (148.14+/-85.42)ml and (71.50+/-58.09)ml vs. (322.86+/-148.42)ml (all P<0.05) respectively.
Though equal pressure method is simple, it could not take the place of pressure-volume curve method to quantify recruited volume.
比较等压法与压力-容积曲线法对肺复张容积的定量测定。
经静脉注射3μg/kg脂多糖(LPS)建立急性呼吸窘迫综合征绵羊模型。采用压力-容积曲线法和等压法测定三种不同水平呼气末正压(PEEP = 5、10、15 cm H₂O)下的肺复张容积。
压力-容积曲线法测定肺复张容积所需时间为5 - 6分钟,长于等压法。两种方法测得的肺复张容积均随PEEP增加而增大。在PEEP为5 cm H₂O时,等压法与压力-容积曲线法测得的肺复张容积差异无统计学意义,分别为(25.79±20.48)ml和(63.26±54.57)ml(P>0.05);而在PEEP为10 cm H₂O和15 cm H₂O时,等压法测得的肺复张容积低于压力-容积曲线法,分别为(48.64±30.51)ml对(148.14±85.42)ml以及(71.50±58.09)ml对(322.86±148.42)ml(均P<0.05)。
等压法虽操作简单,但在肺复张容积定量测定中不能替代压力-容积曲线法。