Pinsky Michael R
Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 606 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA,
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Jul;40(7):935-41. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3294-8. Epub 2014 Apr 24.
In 1992, we published a report on the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on right ventricular (RV) function in humans.
We measured RV volumes and pressures and pericardial pressure (Ppc) as PEEP was increased from zero to 15 cm H20 in 12 patients after thoracotomy, using a pulmonary arterial catheter equipped with a rapid responding thermistor that allowed measurement of RV ejection fraction (RVef), while Ppc was measured via a pericardial balloon catheter. RV end-diastolic volume (EDV) was estimated as the ratio of stroke volume (SV) to RVef, whereas RV end-systolic volume (ESV) were estimated as RV EDV-SV. PEEP increased Ppc and Pra, but RVef unaltered. There was no relation between either RV filling pressure (Pra-Ppc) and EDV or the change in RV filling pressure and EDV, although EDV varied significantly with PEEP (p < 0.05). The relations between EDV and both SV and RVef were weak (r = 0.54 and 0.55, respectively). RVef varied inversely with ESV (r = -0.77), although it showed no relation to transmural peak pulmonary artery pressure (r = 0.28). However, both absolute and relative changes in EDV corresponded closely with respective ESV values (r = 0.94). We concluded that EDV varies independently of changes in filling pressure and that changes in ESV occur independently of changes in ejection pressure. These data can be explained by assuming that the RV shape changes can dissociate changes in RV EDV from changes in RV wall stress (preload). Thus, changes in RV EDV may or may not alter SV but should proportionately change ESV to a degree dependent on election pressure and contractility.
Subsequent studies confirmed our findings which can be summarized as 1) RV filling is independent of Pra; thus central venous pressure cannot be used to estimate RV preload; and 2) for cardiac output to increase by the Starling mechanism the RV must dilate increasing RV ESV. Since the pericardium limits absolute biventricular volume, there is a finite limit to which cardiac output can increase by the Starling mechanism defined not by left ventricular contractility but by RV function. And 3) if fluid loading causes Pra to increase without increasing cardiac output, then resuscitation should stop as the patient is going into acute cor pulmonale. These truths help bedside clinicians understand the echocardiographic and hemodynamic signatures of both RV failure and volume responsiveness.
1992年,我们发表了一篇关于呼气末正压(PEEP)对人体右心室(RV)功能影响的报告。
在12例开胸术后患者中,当PEEP从零增加到15 cm H₂O时,我们使用配备快速响应热敏电阻的肺动脉导管测量右心室容积和压力以及心包压力(Ppc),该热敏电阻可用于测量右心室射血分数(RVef),而Ppc通过心包球囊导管测量。右心室舒张末期容积(EDV)通过每搏量(SV)与RVef的比值估算,而右心室收缩末期容积(ESV)通过RV EDV - SV估算。PEEP使Ppc和中心静脉压(Pra)升高,但RVef未改变。尽管EDV随PEEP有显著变化(p < 0.05),但右心室充盈压(Pra - Ppc)与EDV之间或右心室充盈压变化与EDV之间均无关联。EDV与SV和RVef之间的关系均较弱(r分别为0.54和0.55)。RVef与ESV呈负相关(r = -0.77),尽管它与跨壁肺动脉峰值压力无关联(r = 0.28)。然而,EDV的绝对变化和相对变化均与各自的ESV值密切相关(r = 0.94)。我们得出结论,EDV的变化独立于充盈压的变化,ESV的变化独立于射血压力的变化。这些数据可以通过假设右心室形状变化可使右心室EDV的变化与右心室壁应力(前负荷)的变化相分离来解释。因此,右心室EDV的变化可能会也可能不会改变SV,但应按比例改变ESV,其程度取决于射血压力和收缩力。
后续研究证实了我们的发现,可总结为:1)右心室充盈独立于Pra;因此中心静脉压不能用于估计右心室前负荷;2)为使心输出量通过Starling机制增加,右心室必须扩张,增加右心室ESV。由于心包限制了双心室的绝对容积,心输出量通过Starling机制增加存在有限的限度,该限度不是由左心室收缩力而是由右心室功能决定。3)如果液体负荷导致Pra升高而心输出量未增加,那么当患者进入急性肺心病时应停止复苏。这些事实有助于床边临床医生理解右心室衰竭和容量反应性的超声心动图及血流动力学特征。