Kiaei Babak Ali, Kashefi Parviz, Hashemi Seyed Taghi, Moradi Daryoush, Mobasheri Ahmad
Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan, Iran.
Medical School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Adv Biomed Res. 2017 May 2;6:52. doi: 10.4103/2277-9175.205526. eCollection 2017.
The conventional method for ventilation is supported by accommodative or adaptive support ventilation (ASV) that the latter method is done with two methods: ASV minute ventilation (mv): 110% and ASV mv: 120%. Regarding these methods this study compared the differences in duration of mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic changes during recovery and length of stay in Intensive Care Units (ICU).
In a clinical trial study, forty patients candidate for ventilation were selected and randomly divided into two groups of A and B. All patients were ventilated by Rafael ventilator. Ventilator parameters were set on ASV mv: 110% or ASV mv: 120% and patients were monitored on pulse oximetry, electrocardiography monitoring, central vein pressure and arterial pressure. Finally, the data entered to computer and analyzed by SPSS software.
The time average of connection to ventilator in two groups in modes of ASV mv: 110% and 120% was 12.3 ± 3.66 and 10.8 ± 2.07 days respectively, and according to -test, there was no significant difference between two groups ( = 0.11). The average of length of stay in ICU in two groups of 110% and 120% was 16.35 ± 3.51 and 15.5 ± 2.62 days respectively, and according to -test, there found to be no significant difference between two groups ( = 0.41).
Using ASV mv: 120% can decrease extubation time compared with ASV mv: 110%. Furthermore, there is not a considerable side effect on hemodynamic of patients.
传统通气方法由适应性或适应性支持通气(ASV)支持,后者通过两种方法进行:ASV分钟通气量(mv):110%和ASV mv:120%。关于这些方法,本研究比较了机械通气持续时间、恢复期间的血流动力学变化以及重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间的差异。
在一项临床试验研究中,选择40例有通气指征的患者,随机分为A组和B组。所有患者均使用拉斐尔呼吸机进行通气。将呼吸机参数设置为ASV mv:110%或ASV mv:120%,并对患者进行脉搏血氧饱和度、心电图监测、中心静脉压和动脉压监测。最后,将数据录入计算机,并用SPSS软件进行分析。
在ASV mv:110%和120%模式下,两组患者与呼吸机连接的平均时间分别为12.3±3.66天和10.8±2.07天,根据t检验,两组之间无显著差异(P = 0.11)。110%和120%两组患者在ICU的平均住院时间分别为16.35±3.51天和15.5±2.62天,根据t检验,两组之间无显著差异(P = 0.41)。
与ASV mv:110%相比,使用ASV mv:120%可缩短拔管时间。此外,对患者的血流动力学没有明显的副作用。