Unit for Anaesthesiological Investigations, University Hospitals of Geneva and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Department of Medical Physics and Informatics, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Br J Anaesth. 2018 Oct;121(4):918-927. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.01.020. Epub 2018 Mar 7.
Various ventilation strategies have been proposed to reduce ventilation-induced lung injury that occurs even in individuals with healthy lungs. We compared new modalities based on an individualised physiological variable ventilation model to a conventional pressure-controlled mode.
Rabbits were anaesthetised and ventilated for up to 7 h using pressure-controlled ventilation with (Group PCS, n=10), and without (Group PC, n=10) regular sighs. Variable ventilation in the other two groups was achieved via a pre-recorded spontaneous breathing pattern [Group physiologically variable ventilation (PVV), n=10] or triggered by the electrical activity of the diaphragm [Group neurally adjusted ventilation assist (NAVA), n=9]. Respiratory elastance, haemodynamic profile, and gas exchange were assessed throughout the ventilation period. Cellular profile, cytokine content of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and wet-to-dry lung weight ratio (W/D) were determined after protocol completion. Lung injury scores were obtained from histological analysis.
Marked deteriorations in elastance were observed (median and 95% confidence interval) in Group PC [48.6 (22)% increase from baseline], while no changes were detected in Groups PCS [3.6 (8.1)%], PVV [18.7 (13.2)%], and NAVA [-1.4 (12.2)%]. In comparison with Group PC, Group PVV had a lower lung injury score [0.29 (0.02) compared with 0.36 (0.05), P<0.05] and W/D ratio [5.6 (0.1) compared with 6.2 (0.3), P<0.05]. There was no difference in blood gas, haemodynamic, or inflammatory parameters between the groups.
Individualised PVV based on a pre-recorded spontaneous breathing pattern provides adequate gas exchange and promotes a level of lung protection. This ventilation modality could be of benefit during prolonged anaesthesia, in which assisted ventilation is not possible because of the absence of a respiratory drive.
各种通气策略已被提出,以减少即使在健康肺的个体中也会发生的通气诱导性肺损伤。我们比较了基于个体化生理变量通气模型的新方法与传统压力控制模式。
兔子接受麻醉并使用压力控制通气进行通气长达 7 小时,其中一组(PCS 组,n=10)进行常规叹气通气,而另一组(PC 组,n=10)则不进行常规叹气通气。另外两组的可变通气是通过预记录的自主呼吸模式(PVV 组,n=10)或通过膈肌电活动触发(NAVA 组,n=9)来实现的。在整个通气期间评估呼吸弹性、血流动力学谱和气体交换。在方案完成后测定细胞谱、支气管肺泡灌洗液中的细胞因子含量和湿重/干重比(W/D)。从组织学分析中获得肺损伤评分。
在 PC 组中观察到弹性显著恶化(中位数和 95%置信区间)[从基线增加 48.6(22)%],而在 PCS 组[3.6(8.1)%]、PVV 组[18.7(13.2)%]和 NAVA 组[-1.4(12.2)%]中未检测到变化。与 PC 组相比,PVV 组的肺损伤评分较低[0.29(0.02)与 0.36(0.05)相比,P<0.05]和 W/D 比[5.6(0.1)与 6.2(0.3)相比,P<0.05]。各组之间的血气、血流动力学和炎症参数没有差异。
基于预记录自主呼吸模式的个体化 PVV 可提供充分的气体交换并促进一定程度的肺保护。这种通气方式在长时间麻醉期间可能有益,因为缺乏呼吸驱动而无法进行辅助通气。