Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, 4650 Sunset Blvd Mailstop 12, Los Angeles, CA 90027, USA.
Intensive Care Med. 2011 Nov;37(11):1840-8. doi: 10.1007/s00134-011-2367-1. Epub 2011 Oct 1.
Although pediatric intensivists claim to embrace lung protective ventilation for acute lung injury (ALI), ventilator management is variable. We describe ventilator changes clinicians made for children with hypoxemic respiratory failure, and evaluate the potential acceptability of a pediatric ventilation protocol.
This was a retrospective cohort study performed in a tertiary care pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The study period was from January 2000 to July 2007. We included mechanically ventilated children with PaO(2)/FiO(2) (P/F) ratio less than 300. We assessed variability in ventilator management by evaluating actual changes to ventilator settings after an arterial blood gas (ABG). We evaluated the potential acceptability of a pediatric mechanical ventilation protocol we adapted from National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH/NHLBI) Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Network protocols by comparing actual practice changes in ventilator settings to changes that would have been recommended by the protocol.
A total of 2,719 ABGs from 402 patients were associated with 6,017 ventilator settings. Clinicians infrequently decreased FiO(2), even when the PaO(2) was high (>68 mmHg). The protocol would have recommended more positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) than was used in actual practice 42% of the time in the mid PaO(2) range (55-68 mmHg) and 67% of the time in the low PaO(2) range (<55 mmHg). Clinicians often made no change to either peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) or ventilator rate (VR) when the protocol would have recommended a change, even when the pH was greater than 7.45 with PIP at least 35 cmH(2)O.
There may be lost opportunities to minimize potentially injurious ventilator settings for children with ALI. A reproducible pediatric mechanical ventilation protocol could prompt clinicians to make ventilator changes that are consistent with lung protective ventilation.
尽管儿科重症监护医师声称采用肺保护性通气策略治疗急性肺损伤(ALI),但呼吸机的管理仍存在差异。本研究旨在描述临床医师对低氧性呼吸衰竭患儿进行的呼吸机调整,并评估一种儿科呼吸机通气方案的潜在可行性。
本研究为单中心回顾性队列研究,对象为 2000 年 1 月至 2007 年 7 月入住我院儿科重症监护病房(PICU)的机械通气患儿。患儿动脉血氧分压/吸入氧浓度(PaO2/FiO2)比值<300。我们通过评估动脉血气分析(ABG)后呼吸机参数的实际变化,来评估呼吸机管理的变异性。通过比较实际呼吸机参数变化与方案推荐的呼吸机参数变化,评估我们从美国国立卫生研究院/国家心肺血液研究所(NIH/NHLBI)急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)网络方案中改编的小儿机械通气方案的潜在可行性。
共纳入 402 例患儿的 2719 次 ABG 结果,涉及 6017 次呼吸机参数调整。即使 PaO2 较高(>68mmHg),临床医师也很少降低 FiO2。在 PaO2 处于中值范围(55-68mmHg)时,方案推荐的 PEEP 高于实际应用的 42%,在 PaO2 较低范围(<55mmHg)时,方案推荐的 PEEP 高于实际应用的 67%。当 pH 值>7.45 且 PIP 至少为 35cmH2O 时,即使需要调整呼吸机参数,临床医师也常不改变 PIP 或 VR。
对于 ALI 患儿,可能存在错失最小化潜在肺损伤呼吸机参数的机会。一种可重复的小儿机械通气方案可促使临床医师进行与肺保护性通气一致的呼吸机调整。