Zhan Chun, Qin Ying-zhi, Zhang Na-xin, Xu Lei, Zhang Wei
Department of Intensive Care Unit, Tianjin Third Central Hospital, Tianjin, 300170, China.
Zhongguo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2006 Jun;18(6):350-4.
To study the application of mechanical ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE), and compare the changes in hemodynamics between continuous positive airway pressure proportional pressure support (CPAP-PPS) with continuous positive airway pressure-pressure support ventilation (CPAP-PSV).
Non-invasive and invasive ventilation were performed in 77 ACPE patients. At the initiation of invasive ventilation and the phase of low assist ventilation in 61 patients who were treated with mechanical ventilation longer than 24 hours, hemodynamics was monitored by partial CO(2) rebreathing method (non-invasive cardiac output, NICO) cardiopulmonary management system, and then compared the changes in the two kinds of ventilation under medicinal intervention.
Among 33 of 61 ACPE patients underwent non-invasive ventilation, 24 were successful, and the ratio was 72.7%. Among 33 patients with invasive ventilation (including 5 in whom ventilation was switched to non-invasive mode), 11 failed. Biphasic positive airway pressure/pressure support ventilation (BIPAP/PSV) was used in pressure controlled ventilation, with high pressure (Phigh) 16-24 cm H(2)O (1 cm H(2)O=0.098 kPa), time of high pressure (Thigh) 1.5 seconds, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) 6-15 cm H(2)O, fractional concentration of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) 0.5, cardiac output (CO)/cardiac index (CI) was significantly improved compared with those of initial ventilation in successful ones in invasive group, and the improvement was more significant in PPS compared with PSV in low assist ventilation (all P<0.001). Those in whom invasive ventilation was failed had a low CI (<1.5 L.min(-1).m(-2)) even under drug intervention.
Hemodynamic monitoring should be performed when medicinal intervention and non-invasive/invasive ventilation are given to ACPE patients. Pressure controlled ventilation is recommended, and PEEP should be individualized (normally 6-15 cm H(2)O). Spontaneous ventilation should be restored as soon as possible, CPAP-PPS mode is practicable in patients in whom weaning of mechanical ventilation is difficult.
研究机械通气在急性心源性肺水肿(ACPE)中的应用,并比较持续气道正压比例压力支持(CPAP-PPS)与持续气道正压-压力支持通气(CPAP-PSV)时血流动力学的变化。
对77例ACPE患者进行无创和有创通气。在61例机械通气时间超过24小时的患者开始有创通气时及低辅助通气阶段,采用部分二氧化碳重呼吸法(无创心输出量,NICO)心肺管理系统监测血流动力学,然后比较药物干预下两种通气方式的变化。
61例ACPE患者中33例行无创通气,24例成功,成功率为72.7%。33例行有创通气的患者(包括5例转为无创通气模式者)中,11例失败。压力控制通气采用双水平气道正压/压力支持通气(BIPAP/PSV),高压(Phigh)16~24 cmH₂O(1 cmH₂O = 0.098 kPa),高压时间(Thigh)1.5秒,呼气末正压(PEEP)6~15 cmH₂O,吸入氧分数(FiO₂)0.5,有创组成功患者的心输出量(CO)/心脏指数(CI)较初始通气时显著改善,低辅助通气时PPS组较PSV组改善更显著(均P < 0.001)。有创通气失败的患者即使在药物干预下CI仍较低(<1.5 L·min⁻¹·m⁻²)。
对ACPE患者进行药物干预及无创/有创通气时应进行血流动力学监测。推荐采用压力控制通气,PEEP应个体化(一般为6~15 cmH₂O)。应尽快恢复自主通气,CPAP-PPS模式对机械通气撤机困难的患者可行。