Institute of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Department of Internal Medicine, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Physiol Meas. 2021 Feb 6;42(1):014002. doi: 10.1088/1361-6579/abd679.
The aim of the study was to compare titration of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and with ventilator-embedded pressure-volume (PV) loop in moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
Eighty-seven moderate to severe ARDS patients (arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ratio, PaO/FiO ≤ 200 mmHg) were randomized to either EIT group (n = 42) or PV group (n = 45). All patients received identical medical care using the same general support guidelines and protective mechanical ventilation. In the EIT group, the selected PEEP equaled the airway pressure at the intercept between cumulated collapse and overdistension percentages curves and in the PV group, at the pressure where maximal hysteresis was reached.
Baseline characteristics and settings were comparable between the groups. After optimization, PEEP was significantly higher in the PV group (17.4 ± 1.7 versus 16.2 ± 2.6 cmHO, PV versus EIT groups, p = 0.02). After 48 h, driving pressure was significantly higher in the PV group (12.4 ± 3.6 versus 10.9 ± 2.5 cmHO, p = 0.04). Lung mechanics and oxygenation were better in the EIT group but did not statistically differ between the groups. The survival rate was lower in the PV group (44.4% versus 69.0%, p = 0.02; hazard ratio 2.1, confidence interval 1·1-3.9). None of the other pre-specified exploratory clinical endpoints were significantly different.
In moderate to severe ARDS, PEEP titration guided with EIT, compared with PV curve, might be associated with improved driving pressure and survival rate.
NCT03112512, 13 April, 2017.
本研究旨在比较呼气末正压(PEEP)滴定与电阻抗断层成像(EIT)和呼吸机内置压力-容积(PV)环在中重度急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)中的应用。
将 87 例中重度 ARDS 患者(动脉血氧分压与吸入氧分数之比,PaO/FiO≤200mmHg)随机分为 EIT 组(n=42)或 PV 组(n=45)。所有患者均接受相同的医疗护理,采用相同的一般支持指南和保护性机械通气。在 EIT 组中,选择的 PEEP 等于累积塌陷和过度膨胀百分比曲线之间的气道压力,在 PV 组中,选择达到最大滞后的压力。
两组患者的基线特征和设定无差异。优化后,PV 组 PEEP 明显高于 EIT 组(17.4±1.7 比 16.2±2.6cmH2O,PV 组与 EIT 组,p=0.02)。48 小时后,PV 组驱动压明显高于 EIT 组(12.4±3.6 比 10.9±2.5cmH2O,p=0.04)。EIT 组肺力学和氧合更好,但两组间无统计学差异。PV 组的生存率较低(44.4%比 69.0%,p=0.02;危险比 2.1,置信区间 1.1-3.9)。其他预定的探索性临床终点均无显著差异。
在中重度 ARDS 中,与 PV 曲线相比,EIT 指导的 PEEP 滴定可能与改善驱动压和生存率相关。
NCT03112512,2017 年 4 月 13 日。