Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, San Paolo University Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Department of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Crit Care. 2019 Nov 27;23(1):375. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2611-6.
In ARDS patients, changes in respiratory mechanical properties and ventilatory settings can cause incomplete lung deflation at end-expiration. Both can promote dynamic hyperinflation and intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The aim of this study was to investigate, in a large population of ARDS patients, the presence of intrinsic PEEP, possible associated factors (patients' characteristics and ventilator settings), and the effects of two different external PEEP levels on the intrinsic PEEP.
We made a secondary analysis of published data. Patients were ventilated with a tidal volume of 6-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight, sedated, and paralyzed. After a recruitment maneuver, a PEEP trial was run at 5 and 15 cmHO, and partitioned mechanics measurements were collected after 20 min of stabilization. Lung computed tomography scans were taken at 5 and 45 cmHO. Patients were classified into two groups according to whether or not they had intrinsic PEEP at the end of an expiratory pause.
We enrolled 217 sedated, paralyzed patients: 87 (40%) had intrinsic PEEP with a median of 1.1 [1.0-2.3] cmHO at 5 cmHO of PEEP. The intrinsic PEEP significantly decreased with higher PEEP (1.1 [1.0-2.3] vs 0.6 [0.0-1.0] cmHO; p < 0.001). The applied tidal volume was significantly lower (480 [430-540] vs 520 [445-600] mL at 5 cmHO of PEEP; 480 [430-540] vs 510 [430-590] mL at 15 cmHO) in patients with intrinsic PEEP, while the respiratory rate was significantly higher (18 [15-20] vs 15 [13-19] bpm at 5 cmHO of PEEP; 18 [15-20] vs 15 [13-19] bpm at 15 cmHO). At both PEEP levels, the total airway resistance and compliance of the respiratory system were not different in patients with and without intrinsic PEEP. The total lung gas volume and lung recruitability were also not different between patients with and without intrinsic PEEP (respectively 961 [701-1535] vs 973 [659-1433] mL and 15 [0-32] % vs 22 [0-36] %).
In sedated, paralyzed ARDS patients without a known obstructive disease, the amount of intrinsic PEEP during lung-protective ventilation is negligible and does not influence respiratory mechanical properties.
在急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者中,呼吸力学特性和通气设置的变化可导致呼气末肺不完全萎陷。两者均可促进动态过度充气和内源性呼气末正压(PEEP)。本研究的目的是在大量 ARDS 患者中研究内源性 PEEP 的存在、可能的相关因素(患者特征和通气设置),以及两种不同外源性 PEEP 水平对内源性 PEEP 的影响。
我们对已发表的数据进行了二次分析。患者以 6-8ml/kg 预测体重的潮气量进行通气,给予镇静和肌松。在进行复张手法后,以 5cmHO 和 15cmHO 进行 PEEP 试验,并在稳定 20 分钟后采集分区力学测量值。在 5cmHO 和 45cmHO 时进行肺部计算机断层扫描。根据患者在呼气暂停结束时是否存在内源性 PEEP,将其分为两组。
我们纳入了 217 名镇静、肌松的患者:87 名(40%)患者在 5cmHO 的 PEEP 时存在内源性 PEEP,中位值为 1.1[1.0-2.3]cmHO。内源性 PEEP 随 PEEP 增加而显著降低(1.1[1.0-2.3]vs 0.6[0.0-1.0]cmHO;p<0.001)。应用潮气量明显较低(5cmHO 的 PEEP 时为 480[430-540]vs 520[445-600]mL;15cmHO 时为 480[430-540]vs 510[430-590]mL),而呼吸频率明显较高(5cmHO 的 PEEP 时为 18[15-20]vs 15[13-19]bpm;15cmHO 时为 18[15-20]vs 15[13-19]bpm)。在两个 PEEP 水平下,存在和不存在内源性 PEEP 的患者的气道总阻力和呼吸系统顺应性均无差异。存在和不存在内源性 PEEP 的患者的总肺气量和肺可复张性也无差异(分别为 961[701-1535]vs 973[659-1433]mL 和 15[0-32]% vs 22[0-36]%)。
在未明确存在阻塞性疾病的镇静、肌松的 ARDS 患者中,肺保护性通气期间内源性 PEEP 的量可忽略不计,且不会影响呼吸力学特性。