McMullen Michael C, Girling Linda G, Graham M Ruth, Mutch W Alan C
Anesthesia Research Laboratory, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Anesthesiology. 2006 Jul;105(1):91-7. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200607000-00017.
Hypoxemia is common during one-lung ventilation (OLV). Atelectasis contributes to the problem. Biologically variable ventilation (BVV), using microprocessors to reinstitute physiologic variability to respiratory rate and tidal volume, has been shown to be advantageous over conventional monotonous control mode ventilation (CMV) in improving oxygenation during the period of lung reinflation after OLV in an experimental model. Here, using a porcine model, the authors compared BVV with CMV during OLV to assess gas exchange and respiratory mechanics.
Eight pigs (25-30 kg) were studied in each of two groups. After induction of anesthesia-tidal volume 12 ml/kg with CMV and surgical intervention-tidal volume was reduced to 9 ml/kg. OLV was initiated with an endobronchial blocker, and the animals were randomly allocated to either continue CMV or switch to BVV for 90 min. After OLV, a recruitment maneuver was undertaken, and both lungs were ventilated for a further 60 min. At predetermined intervals, hemodynamics, respiratory gases (arterial, venous, and end-tidal samples) and mechanics (airway pressures, static and dynamic compliances) were measured. Derived indices (pulmonary vascular resistance, shunt fraction, and dead space ventilation) were calculated.
By 15 min of OLV, arterial oxygen tension was greater in the BVV group (group x time interaction, P = 0.003), and shunt fraction was lower with BVV from 30 to 90 min (group effect, P = 0.0004). From 60 to 90 min, arterial carbon dioxide tension was lower with BVV (group x time interaction, P = 0.0001) and dead space ventilation was less from 60 to 90 min (group x time interaction, P = 0.0001). Static compliance was greater by 60 min of BVV and remained greater during return to ventilation of both lungs (group effect, P = 0.0001).
In this model of OLV, BVV resulted in superior gas exchange and respiratory mechanics when compared with CMV. Improved static compliance persisted with restoration of two-lung ventilation.
单肺通气(OLV)期间低氧血症很常见。肺不张是导致该问题的原因之一。生物可变通气(BVV)利用微处理器使呼吸频率和潮气量恢复生理变异性,在实验模型中,已显示其在OLV后肺复张期间改善氧合方面优于传统的单调控制模式通气(CMV)。在此,作者使用猪模型比较了OLV期间BVV与CMV对气体交换和呼吸力学的影响。
两组中每组研究8头猪(25 - 30千克)。麻醉诱导后——CMV模式下潮气量为12毫升/千克,手术干预后——潮气量降至9毫升/千克。使用支气管内封堵器开始OLV,动物被随机分配继续CMV或切换至BVV持续90分钟。OLV后,进行复张手法,双肺再通气60分钟。在预定时间间隔测量血流动力学、呼吸气体(动脉血、静脉血和呼气末样本)和力学指标(气道压力、静态和动态顺应性)。计算派生指标(肺血管阻力、分流分数和死腔通气)。
OLV 15分钟时,BVV组动脉血氧分压更高(组×时间交互作用,P = 0.003),30至90分钟时BVV组的分流分数更低(组效应,P = 0.0004)。60至90分钟时,BVV组动脉血二氧化碳分压更低(组×时间交互作用,P = 0.0001),60至90分钟时死腔通气更少(组×时间交互作用,P = 0.0001)。BVV 60分钟时静态顺应性更高,双肺恢复通气期间一直保持更高(组效应,P = 0.0001)。
在此OLV模型中,与CMV相比,BVV导致更好的气体交换和呼吸力学。双肺通气恢复时,改善的静态顺应性持续存在。