在心源性休克中，高频喷射通气（HFJV）的血流动力学耐受性并不优于控制机械通气（CMV）。

High frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) has no better haemodynamic tolerance than controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) in cardiogenic shock.

作者信息

Crimi G, Conti G, Bufi M, Antonelli M, de Blasi R A, Mattia C, Romano R, Gasparetto A

机构信息

Institute of Anaesthesiology and Resuscitation, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.

出版信息

Intensive Care Med. 1988;14(4):359-63. doi: 10.1007/BF00262889.

DOI:10.1007/BF00262889

PMID:3403768

Abstract

Six patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock were studied in order to compare the haemodynamic tolerance of controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) and high frequency jet ventilation (HFJV). The comparative analysis of the two techniques was performed with the same levels of PaO2 (CMV: 101 +/- 13 mmHg; HFJV: 104.2 +/- 14 p = ns); and PaCO2 (CMV: 37 +/- 1.7; HFJV: 35.7 +/- 1.4 p = ns). In this situation the values of mean airway pressure (Paw) did not differ significantly (CMV: 13 +/- 3 cm H2O; HFJV: 12.6 +/- 3.8 cm H2O) and no statistically significant difference in haemodynamic values was observed. These results demonstrate that in patients with cardiogenic shock, there is no difference between HFJV and CMV in terms of haemodynamic tolerance. Because of the more difficult clinical management of HFJV, this technique does not seem indicated as ventilatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock states.

摘要

为比较控制机械通气（CMV）和高频喷射通气（HFJV）对血流动力学的耐受性，对6例急性心肌梗死（AMI）并发心源性休克的患者进行了研究。在相同的动脉血氧分压（PaO2）水平（CMV：101±13 mmHg；HFJV：104.2±14，p无显著性差异）和动脉血二氧化碳分压（PaCO2）水平（CMV：37±1.7；HFJV：35.7±1.4，p无显著性差异）下对这两种技术进行了对比分析。在此情况下，平均气道压（Paw）值无显著差异（CMV：13±3 cmH2O；HFJV：12.6±3.8 cmH2O），血流动力学值也未观察到统计学上的显著差异。这些结果表明，在心源性休克患者中，HFJV和CMV在血流动力学耐受性方面没有差异。由于HFJV的临床管理更困难，该技术似乎不适合作为心源性休克状态患者的通气支持。