Suppr超能文献

在成人呼吸窘迫综合征机械模型中比较气道压力释放通气和双相气道压力下的氧合与通气替代指标。

Comparing surrogates of oxygenation and ventilation between airway pressure release ventilation and biphasic airway pressure in a mechanical model of adult respiratory distress syndrome.

作者信息

Daoud Ehab G, Chatburn Robert L

机构信息

Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.

出版信息

Respir Investig. 2014 Jul;52(4):236-41. doi: 10.1016/j.resinv.2014.03.002. Epub 2014 Apr 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

No objective data directly comparing the 2 modes are available. Based on a simple mathematical model, APRV and BIPAP can presumably be set to achieve the same mean airway pressure (mPaw), end expiratory pressure, and tidal volume (V(T)). Herein, we tested this hypothesis when using a real ventilator and clinically relevant settings based on expiratory time constants.

METHODS

A spontaneously breathing acute respiratory distress syndrome patient was modeled with a lung simulator. Mode settings: P high and the number of releases were the same in both modes; T low=1 time constant in APRV (expected auto-positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP], ≈9 cmH(2)O) and 5 time constants in BIPAP; P low, 0 cmH(2)O in APRV and 9 cmH(2)O in BIPAP (equal to the expected auto-PEEP in APRV). The mean mandatory release volumes, minute ventilation [V(E)], mPaw, and total PEEP were compared with t-tests using a P value of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis.

RESULTS

APRV yielded significantly higher mPaw than did BIPAP. Minute ventilation was significantly higher in BIPAP. The total PEEP was significantly higher in APRV; the total PEEP was significantly higher than expected.

CONCLUSION

We found that neither mode was superior to the other, and that a real ventilator does not behave like a mathematical model. Extreme prolongation of T high generated a higher mPaw at the expense of V(E), and vice versa. The lower V(T) with APRV was due to the higher total PEEP, which was higher than expected. Setting the T low according to the respiratory system time constant for either mode resulted in an unpredictable total PEEP.

摘要

背景

目前尚无直接比较这两种模式的客观数据。基于一个简单的数学模型,理论上可以将气道压力释放通气(APRV)和双水平气道正压通气(BIPAP)设置为相同的平均气道压(mPaw)、呼气末正压和潮气量(V(T))。在此,我们使用真实的呼吸机并基于呼气时间常数设置临床相关参数,对这一假设进行了测试。

方法

使用肺模拟器模拟一名急性呼吸窘迫综合征的自主呼吸患者。模式设置:两种模式下的高压力(P high)和释放次数相同;APRV模式下的低时间(T low)为1个时间常数(预期的自动呼气末正压[PEEP]约为9 cmH₂O),BIPAP模式下为5个时间常数;APRV模式下的低压力(P low)为0 cmH₂O,BIPAP模式下为9 cmH₂O(等于APRV模式下预期的自动PEEP)。使用t检验比较平均强制释放容积、分钟通气量[V(E)]、mPaw和总PEEP,P值为0.05时拒绝原假设。

结果

APRV模式产生的mPaw显著高于BIPAP模式。BIPAP模式下的分钟通气量显著更高。APRV模式下的总PEEP显著更高;总PEEP显著高于预期。

结论

我们发现两种模式并无优劣之分,真实的呼吸机与数学模型表现不同。高时间(T high)的极度延长会以牺牲V(E)为代价产生更高的mPaw,反之亦然。APRV模式下较低的V(T)是由于总PEEP较高,且高于预期。根据任一模式的呼吸系统时间常数设置T low会导致总PEEP不可预测。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验