Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2020 Feb 20;20(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-00960-9.
The application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may reduce dynamic strain during mechanical ventilation. Although numerous approaches for PEEP titration have been proposed, there is no accepted strategy for titrating optimal PEEP. By analyzing intratidal compliance profiles, PEEP may be individually titrated for patients.
After obtaining informed consent, 60 consecutive patients undergoing general anesthesia were randomly allocated to mechanical ventilation with PEEP 5 cmHO (control group) or PEEP individually titrated, guided by an analysis of the intratidal compliance profile (intervention group). The primary endpoint was the frequency of each nonlinear intratidal compliance (C) profile of the respiratory system (horizontal, increasing, decreasing, and mixed). The secondary endpoints measured were respiratory mechanics, hemodynamic variables, and regional ventilation, which was assessed via electrical impedance tomography.
The frequencies of the C profiles were comparable between the groups. Besides PEEP [control: 5.0 (0.0), intervention: 5.8 (1.1) cmHO, p < 0.001], the respiratory and hemodynamic variables were comparable between the two groups. The compliance profile analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups. The loss of ventral and dorsal regional ventilation was higher in the control [ventral: 41.0 (16.3)%; dorsal: 25.9 (13.8)%] than in the intervention group [ventral: 29.3 (17.6)%; dorsal: 16.4 (12.7)%; p (ventral) = 0.039, p (dorsal) = 0.028].
Unfavorable compliance profiles indicating tidal derecruitment were found less often than in earlier studies. Individualized PEEP titration resulted in slightly higher PEEP. A slight global increase in aeration associated with this was indicated by regional gain and loss analysis. Differences in dorsal to ventral ventilation distribution were not found.
This clinical trial was registered at the German Register for Clinical Trials (DRKS00008924) on August 10, 2015.
呼气末正压(PEEP)的应用可能会减少机械通气过程中的动态应变。尽管已经提出了许多 PEEP 滴定方法,但尚无公认的滴定最佳 PEEP 的策略。通过分析潮气量顺应性曲线,可以针对患者进行个体化的 PEEP 滴定。
在获得知情同意后,将 60 例连续接受全身麻醉的患者随机分配至接受 PEEP 5 cmH2O(对照组)或根据潮气量顺应性曲线分析进行个体化滴定 PEEP(干预组)的机械通气。主要终点是呼吸力学系统各非线性潮气量顺应性(C)曲线的出现频率(水平、递增、递减和混合)。次要终点测量包括呼吸力学、血流动力学变量和区域通气,通过电阻抗断层扫描进行评估。
两组的 C 曲线频率无显著差异。除 PEEP [对照组:5.0(0.0)cmH2O;干预组:5.8(1.1)cmH2O,p<0.001]外,两组的呼吸和血流动力学变量也相似。两组间的顺应性曲线分析无显著差异。对照组[腹侧:41.0(16.3)%;背侧:25.9(13.8)%]的腹侧和背侧区域通气损失明显高于干预组[腹侧:29.3(17.6)%;背侧:16.4(12.7)%;p(腹侧)=0.039,p(背侧)=0.028]。
与早期研究相比,发现顺应性曲线不良提示潮气量去复张的情况较少。个体化 PEEP 滴定会导致 PEEP 略有升高。区域增益和损失分析提示与这种情况相关的通气略有全局增加。未发现背侧至腹侧通气分布的差异。
本临床试验于 2015 年 8 月 10 日在德国临床试验注册中心(DRKS00008924)注册。