Suppr超能文献

压力控制通气期间吸气同步对肺扩张和吸气努力的影响。

Effect of inspiratory synchronization during pressure-controlled ventilation on lung distension and inspiratory effort.

作者信息

Rittayamai Nuttapol, Beloncle François, Goligher Ewan C, Chen Lu, Mancebo Jordi, Richard Jean-Christophe M, Brochard Laurent

机构信息

Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Keenan Research Centre and Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.

出版信息

Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Oct 6;7(1):100. doi: 10.1186/s13613-017-0324-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In pressure-controlled (PC) ventilation, tidal volume (V ) and transpulmonary pressure (P ) result from the addition of ventilator pressure and the patient's inspiratory effort. PC modes can be classified into fully, partially, and non-synchronized modes, and the degree of synchronization may result in different V and P despite identical ventilator settings. This study assessed the effects of three PC modes on V , P , inspiratory effort (esophageal pressure-time product, PTP), and airway occlusion pressure, P . We also assessed whether P can be used for evaluating patient effort.

METHODS

Prospective, randomized, crossover physiologic study performed in 14 spontaneously breathing mechanically ventilated patients recovering from acute respiratory failure (1 subsequently withdrew). PC modes were fully (PC-CMV), partially (PC-SIMV), and non-synchronized (PC-IMV using airway pressure release ventilation) and were applied randomly; driving pressure, inspiratory time, and set respiratory rate being similar for all modes. Airway, esophageal pressure, P , airflow, gas exchange, and hemodynamics were recorded.

RESULTS

V was significantly lower during PC-IMV as compared with PC-SIMV and PC-CMV (387 ± 105 vs 458 ± 134 vs 482 ± 108 mL, respectively; p < 0.05). Maximal P was also significantly lower (13.3 ± 4.9 vs 15.3 ± 5.7 vs 15.5 ± 5.2 cmHO, respectively; p < 0.05), but PTP was significantly higher in PC-IMV (215.6 ± 154.3 vs 150.0 ± 102.4 vs 130.9 ± 101.8 cmHO × s × min, respectively; p < 0.05), with no differences in gas exchange and hemodynamic variables. PTP increased by more than 15% in 10 patients and by more than 50% in 5 patients. An increased P could identify high levels of PTP.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-synchronized PC mode lowers V and P in comparison with more synchronized modes in spontaneously breathing patients but can increase patient effort and may need specific adjustments. Clinical Trial Registration Clinicaltrial.gov # NCT02071277.

摘要

背景

在压力控制(PC)通气中,潮气量(V)和跨肺压(P)由呼吸机压力与患者吸气努力相加得出。PC模式可分为完全同步、部分同步和非同步模式,尽管呼吸机设置相同,但同步程度不同可能导致V和P有所差异。本研究评估了三种PC模式对V、P、吸气努力(食管压力-时间乘积,PTP)和气道闭塞压P的影响。我们还评估了P是否可用于评估患者的努力程度。

方法

对14例从急性呼吸衰竭中恢复的自主呼吸机械通气患者进行前瞻性、随机、交叉生理学研究(1例随后退出)。PC模式分别为完全同步(PC-CMV)、部分同步(PC-SIMV)和非同步(使用气道压力释放通气的PC-IMV),并随机应用;所有模式的驱动压力、吸气时间和设定呼吸频率相似。记录气道、食管压力、P、气流、气体交换和血流动力学指标。

结果

与PC-SIMV和PC-CMV相比,PC-IMV期间的V显著降低(分别为387±105、458±134和482±108 mL;p<0.05)。最大P也显著降低(分别为13.3±4.9、15.3±5.7和15.5±5.2 cmH₂O;p<0.05),但PC-IMV中的PTP显著更高(分别为215.6±154.3、150.0±102.4和130.9±101.8 cmH₂O×s×min;p<0.05),气体交换和血流动力学变量无差异。10例患者的PTP增加超过15%,5例患者增加超过50%。P增加可识别高水平的PTP。

结论

与更同步的模式相比,非同步PC模式会降低自主呼吸患者的V和P,但会增加患者的努力程度,可能需要进行特定调整。临床试验注册Clinicaltrial.gov # NCT02071277。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/46f3/5630544/f290dea8ccd0/13613_2017_324_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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