Shojaee Majid, Sabzghabaei Anita, Alimohammadi Hossein, Derakhshanfar Hojjat, Amini Afshin, Esmailzadeh Bahareh
Department of Emergency Medicine, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Loghmane Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Emerg (Tehran). 2017;5(1):e1. Epub 2017 Jan 8.
Finding the probable governing pattern of PEEP and CVP changes is an area of interest for in-charge physicians and researchers. Therefore, the present study was designed with the aim of evaluating the relationship between the mentioned pressures.
In this quasi-experimental study, patients under mechanical ventilation were evaluated with the aim of assessing the effect of PEEP change on CVP. Non-trauma patients, over 18 years of age, who were under mechanical ventilation and had stable hemodynamics, with inserted CV line were entered. After gathering demographic data, patients underwent 0, 5, and 10 cmHO PEEPs and the respective CVPs of the mentioned points were recorded. The relationship of CVP and PEEP in different cut points were measured using SPSS 21.0 statistical software.
60 patients with the mean age of 73.95 ± 11.58 years were evaluated (68.3% male). The most frequent cause of ICU admission was sepsis with 45.0%. 5 cmHO increase in PEEP led to 2.47 ± 1.53 mean difference in CVP level. If the PEEP baseline is 0 at the time of 5 cmHO increase, it leads to a higher raise in CVP compared to when the baseline is 5 cmHO (2.47 ± 1.53 vs. 1.57 ± 1.07; p = 0.039). The relationship between CVP and 5 cmHO (p = 0.279), and 10 cmHO (p = 0.292) PEEP changes were not dependent on the baseline level of CVP.
The findings of this study revealed the direct relationship between PEEP and CVP. Approximately, a 5 cmHO increase in PEEP will be associated with about 2.5 cmHO raise in CVP. When applying a 5 cmHO PEEP increase, if the baseline PEEP is 0, it leads to a significantly higher raise in CVP compared to when it is 5 cmHO (2.5 vs. 1.6). It seems that sex, history of cardiac failure, baseline CVP level, and hypertension do not have a significant effect in this regard.
找出呼气末正压(PEEP)和中心静脉压(CVP)变化的可能主导模式是主治医生和研究人员感兴趣的领域。因此,本研究旨在评估上述压力之间的关系。
在这项准实验研究中,对接受机械通气的患者进行评估,以评估PEEP变化对CVP的影响。纳入年龄超过18岁、接受机械通气且血流动力学稳定、已插入中心静脉导管的非创伤患者。收集人口统计学数据后,患者接受0、5和10cmH₂O的PEEP,记录上述各点对应的CVP。使用SPSS 21.0统计软件测量不同切点处CVP与PEEP的关系。
评估了60例平均年龄为73.95±11.58岁的患者(68.3%为男性)。入住重症监护病房(ICU)最常见的原因是败血症,占45.0%。PEEP增加5cmH₂O导致CVP水平平均差异为2.47±1.53。如果在PEEP增加5cmH₂O时基线为0,与基线为5cmH₂O时相比,CVP升高更高(2.47±1.53对1.57±1.07;p = 0.039)。CVP与5cmH₂O(p = 0.279)和10cmH₂O(p = 0.292)的PEEP变化之间的关系不依赖于CVP的基线水平。
本研究结果揭示了PEEP与CVP之间的直接关系。大约,PEEP增加5cmH₂O将与CVP升高约2.5cmH₂O相关。当PEEP增加5cmH₂O时,如果基线PEEP为0,与基线为5cmH₂O时相比,CVP升高明显更高(2.5对1.6)。在这方面,性别、心力衰竭病史、CVP基线水平和高血压似乎没有显著影响。