Gautam Parshotam Lal, Kaur Gaganjot, Katyal Sunil, Gupta Ruchi, Sandhu Preetveen, Gautam Nikhil
Department of Critical Care Medicine and Anaesthesiology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, India.
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, SGRD Medical College and Hospital, Amritsar, Punjab, India.
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2016 Dec;20(12):689-694. doi: 10.4103/0972-5229.195701.
The patient-ventilator asynchrony is almost observed in all modes of ventilation, and this asynchrony affects lung mechanics adversely resulting in deleterious outcome. Innovations and advances in ventilator technology have been trying to overcome this problem by designing newer modes of ventilation. Pressure support ventilation (PSV) is a commonly used flow-cycled mode where a constant pressure is delivered by ventilator. Proportional assist ventilation (PAV) is a new dynamic inspiratory pressure assistance and is supposed to be better than PSV for synchrony and tolerance, but reports are still controversial. Moreover, most of these studies are conducted in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with respiratory failure; the results of these studies may not be applicable to surgical patients. Thus, we proposed to do compare these two modes in surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients as a randomized crossover study.
Comparison of patient-ventilator asynchrony between PSV and PAV plus (PAV+) in surgical patients while weaning.
After approval by the Hospital Ethics Committee, we enrolled twenty patients from surgical ICU of tertiary care institute. The patients were ventilated with pressure support mode (PSV) and PAV+ for 12 h as a crossover from one mode to another after 6 h while weaning.
Average age and weight of patients were 41.80 ± 15.20 years (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) and 66.50 ± 12.47 (mean ± SD) kg, respectively. Comparing the asynchronies between the two modes, the mean number of total asynchronous recorded breaths in PSV was 7.05 ± 0.83 and 4.35 ± 5.62, respectively, during sleep and awake state, while the same were 6.75 ± 112.24 and 10.85 ± 11.33 in PAV+.
Both PSV and PAV+ modes of ventilation performed similarly for patient-ventilator synchrony in surgical patients. In surgical patients with acute respiratory failure, dynamic inspiratory pressure assistance modalities are not superior to PSV with respect to cardiorespiratory function.
在所有通气模式中几乎都能观察到患者 - 呼吸机不同步,这种不同步会对肺力学产生不利影响,导致不良后果。呼吸机技术的创新和进步一直在尝试通过设计更新的通气模式来克服这个问题。压力支持通气(PSV)是一种常用的流量切换模式,呼吸机提供恒定压力。比例辅助通气(PAV)是一种新的动态吸气压力辅助模式,在同步性和耐受性方面被认为优于PSV,但报道仍存在争议。此外,这些研究大多在慢性阻塞性肺疾病呼吸衰竭患者中进行;这些研究结果可能不适用于外科手术患者。因此,我们提议在外科重症监护病房(ICU)患者中进行一项随机交叉研究,比较这两种模式。
比较外科患者撤机时PSV和比例辅助通气加强版(PAV +)之间的患者 - 呼吸机不同步情况。
经医院伦理委员会批准后,我们从三级医疗机构的外科ICU招募了20名患者。在撤机过程中,患者先以压力支持模式(PSV)通气6小时,然后切换为PAV +通气6小时,再从PAV +切换回PSV通气6小时,每种模式各通气12小时。
患者的平均年龄和体重分别为41.80±15.20岁(均值±标准差[SD])和66.50±12.47(均值±SD)kg。比较两种模式下的不同步情况,PSV在睡眠和清醒状态下记录的总不同步呼吸平均次数分别为7.05±0.83和至4.35±5.62,而PAV +分别为6.75±112.24和10.85±11.33。
在外科患者中,PSV和PAV +通气模式在患者 - 呼吸机同步性方面表现相似。在急性呼吸衰竭的外科患者中,就心肺功能而言,动态吸气压力辅助模式并不优于PSV。