Türk Murat, Aydoğdu Müge, Gürsel Gül
Department of Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine, Gazi University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Chest Diseases, Erciyes University School of Medicine, Kayseri, Turkey.
Turk Thorac J. 2018 Jan;19(1):28-35. doi: 10.5152/TurkThoracJ.2017.17036. Epub 2018 Jan 3.
Different outcomes and success rates of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) still pose a significant problem in intensive care units. Previous studies investigating different modes, body positioning, and obesity-associated hypoventilation in patients with chronic respiratory failure showed that these factors may affect ventilator mechanics to achieve a better minute ventilation. This study tried to compare pressure support (BiPAP-S) and average volume targeted pressure support (AVAPS-S) modes in patients with acute or acute-on-chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. In addition, short-term effects of body position and obesity within both modes were analyzed.
We conducted a randomized controlled study in a 7-bed intensive care unit. The course of blood gas analysis and differences in ventilation variables were compared between BiPAP-S (n=33) and AVAPS-S (n=29), and between semi-recumbent and lateral positions in both modes.
No difference was found in the length of hospital stay and the course of PaCO2, pH, and HCO3 levels between the modes. There was a mean reduction of 5.7±4.1 mmHg in the PaCO2 levels in the AVAPS-S mode, and 2.7±2.3 mmHg in the BiPAP-S mode per session (p<0.05). Obesity didn't have any effect on the course of PaCO2 in both the modes. Body positioning had no notable effect in both modes.
Although the decrease in the PaCO2 levels in the AVAPS-S mode per session was remarkably high, the course was similar in both modes. Furthermore, obesity and body positioning had no prominent effect on the PaCO2 response and ventilator mechanics. Post hoc power analysis showed that the sample size was not adequate to detect a significant difference between the modes.
在重症监护病房中,无创正压通气(NPPV)用于急性高碳酸血症性呼吸衰竭(AHRF)患者时,不同的结果和成功率仍是一个重大问题。先前针对慢性呼吸衰竭患者的不同模式、体位及肥胖相关通气不足的研究表明,这些因素可能会影响呼吸机力学以实现更好的分钟通气量。本研究试图比较急性或慢性急性加重性高碳酸血症性呼吸衰竭患者的压力支持(BiPAP-S)模式和平均容量目标压力支持(AVAPS-S)模式。此外,还分析了两种模式下体位和肥胖的短期影响。
我们在一个拥有7张床位的重症监护病房进行了一项随机对照研究。比较了BiPAP-S组(n = 33)和AVAPS-S组(n = 29)之间的血气分析过程及通气变量差异,以及两种模式下半卧位和侧卧位之间的差异。
两种模式在住院时间以及动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO₂)、pH值和碳酸氢根(HCO₃)水平的变化过程方面均未发现差异。每次治疗时,AVAPS-S模式下PaCO₂水平平均降低5.7±4.1 mmHg,BiPAP-S模式下降低2.7±2.3 mmHg(p<0.05)。肥胖对两种模式下的PaCO₂变化过程均无影响。体位在两种模式下均无显著影响。
尽管AVAPS-S模式每次治疗时PaCO₂水平的下降幅度明显更大,但两种模式的变化过程相似。此外,肥胖和体位对PaCO₂反应及呼吸机力学均无显著影响。事后效能分析表明,样本量不足以检测出两种模式之间的显著差异。