Ma Chunlin, Liang Daoye, Zheng Fukui
Department of Critical Care Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning 530023, Guangxi, China. Corresponding author: Zheng Fukui, Email:
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2014 May;26(5):339-42. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2014.05.011.
To explore the effect of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) for the treatment of neurological pulmonary edema (NPE) in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, and to look for the best mechanical ventilation strategy to improve the prognosis.
A prospective study was conducted, and 120 patients with NEP admitted to Department of Critical Care Medicine of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University from January 2010 to August 2013 were enrolled and divided into two groups according to random number table (n=60 in each group). The patients in two groups were given empiric treatment for the disease, and they underwent mechanical ventilation. In the normal PEEP group PEEP was 3-10 cmH2O (1 cmH2O=0.098 kPa), and in the high PEEP group PEEP was 11-30 cmH2O, and all the rest parameters were the same. Clinical indices before and 7 days after treatment, and 28-day morality rate were compared between two groups.
The 28-day morality rate in high PEEP group was obviously lower than that in the normal PEEP group [25.0% (15/60) vs. 65.0% (39/60), χ(2)=6.465, P=0.011]. The clinical signs in both groups were improved after treatment. Compared with the normal PEEP group, the clinical indices in high PEEP group were more significantly improved. There were significant differences in body temperature (37.4±0.5 centigrade vs. 38.5±0.6 centigrade), respiratory rate (18.3±3.1 times/min vs. 23.3±3.5 times/min), heart rate (94.7±8.5 beats/min vs. 113.5±8.0 beats/min), white blood cell count (WBC: 12.5±2.1 ×10(9)/L vs. 17.1±1.7 ×10(9)/L), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHEII) score (15.6±3.2 vs. 19.8±3.7), Glasgow coma score (GCS: 12.5±2.1 vs. 8.5±2.9), gastrointestinal dysfunction score (3.9±3.0 vs. 3.6±2.4), oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2: 196.5±45.1 mmHg vs. 134.1±22.3 mmHg), serum creatinine (SCr: 86.5±35.6 μmol/L vs. 98.5±37.7 μmol/L), total bilirubin (TBil: 39.7±23.5 μmol/L vs. 41.5±16.2 μmol/L), C-reacting protein (CRP: 53.7±21.4 mmol/L vs. 108.4±26.3 mmol/L), prothrombin time (PT: 15.0±2.1 s vs. 20.4±2.2 s), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT: 37.3±4.9 s vs. 56.7±13.6 s), international normalized ratio (INR: 2.52±0.64 vs. 4.01±0.77), extra vascular lung water index (EVLWI: 7.53±1.21 mL/kg vs. 15.85±3.41 mL/kg), pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI: 6.07±0.89 vs. 9.47±1.26), mean arterial pressure (MAP: 87.3±10.9 mmHg vs. 98.7±13.6 mmHg), cardiac output (CO: 7.15±1.42 L/min vs. 5.65±1.82 L/min), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI: 112.4±9.5 KP vs. 136.5±11.9 KP), and blood lactate (2.53±1.23 mmol/L vs. 5.81±2.17 mmol/L) between high PEEP group and normal PEEP group (P<0.05 or P<0.01).
Prognosis can be improved in NPE patients with the use of high PEEP in mechanical ventilation.
探讨高呼气末正压(PEEP)对机械通气患者神经源性肺水肿(NPE)的治疗效果,并寻找改善预后的最佳机械通气策略。
进行一项前瞻性研究,选取2010年1月至2013年8月广西中医药大学第一附属医院重症医学科收治的120例NPE患者,按随机数字表法分为两组(每组60例)。两组患者均给予疾病经验性治疗并行机械通气。正常PEEP组PEEP为3 - 10 cmH₂O(1 cmH₂O = 0.098 kPa),高PEEP组PEEP为11 - 30 cmH₂O,其余参数相同。比较两组治疗前及治疗7天后的临床指标和28天死亡率。
高PEEP组28天死亡率明显低于正常PEEP组[25.0%(15/60)比65.0%(39/60),χ² = 6.465,P = 0.011]。两组治疗后临床症状均有改善。与正常PEEP组比较,高PEEP组临床指标改善更显著。高PEEP组与正常PEEP组在体温(37.4±0.5℃比38.5±0.6℃)、呼吸频率(18.3±3.1次/分钟比23.3±3.5次/分钟)、心率(94.7±8.5次/分钟比113.5±8.0次/分钟)、白细胞计数(WBC:12.5±2.1×10⁹/L比17.1±1.7×10⁹/L)、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分II(APACHEII)(15.6±3.2比19.8±3.7)、格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS:12.5±2.1比8.5±2.9)、胃肠功能障碍评分(3.9±3.0比3.6±2.4)、氧合指数(PaO₂/FiO₂:196.5±45.1 mmHg比134.1±22.3 mmHg)、血清肌酐(SCr:86.5±35.6 μmol/L比98.5±37.7 μmol/L)、总胆红素(TBil:39.7±23.5 μmol/L比41.5±16.2 μmol/L)、C反应蛋白(CRP:53.7±21.4 mmol/L比108.4±26.3 mmol/L)、凝血酶原时间(PT:15.0±2.1 s比20.4±2.2 s)、活化部分凝血活酶时间(APTT:37.3±4.9 s比56.7±13.6 s)、国际标准化比值(INR:2.52±0.64比4.01±0.77)、血管外肺水指数(EVLWI:7.53±1.21 mL/kg比15.85±3.41 mL/kg)、肺血管通透性指数(PVPI:6.07±0.89比9.47±1.26)、平均动脉压(MAP:87.3±10.9 mmHg比98.7±13.6 mmHg)、心输出量(CO:7.15±1.42 L/min比5.65±1.82 L/min)、全身血管阻力指数(SVRI:112.4±9.5 KP比136.5±11.9 KP)及血乳酸(2.53±1.23 mmol/L比5.81±2.17 mmol/L)方面比较差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05或P < 0.01)。
机械通气时应用高PEEP可改善NPE患者的预后。