Suppr超能文献

使用带套囊气管内导管时,压力控制通气和容量控制通气对猫呼吸功的影响。

Effects of pressure- and volume-controlled ventilation on the work of breathing in cats using a cuffed endotracheal tube.

作者信息

Niyatiwatchanchai Nutawan, Thengchaisri Naris

机构信息

Surgery Unit, Kasetsart University Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, 10900, Thailand.

Department of Companion Animal Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, 10900, Thailand.

出版信息

Vet World. 2021 Sep;14(9):2568-2573. doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2021.2568-2573. Epub 2021 Sep 29.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Mechanical ventilation is essential for supporting patients' respiratory function when they are under general anesthesia. For cats with limited lung capacity, the different effects of volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) on respiratory function remain elusive. The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of VCV and PCV in cats under general anesthesia using a cuffed endotracheal tube (ETT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve healthy cats were randomly allocated to either a VCV or PCV group. Five tidal volumes (6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mL/kg) were randomly applied to assess the efficacy of VCV, and respiratory rates were adjusted to achieve a minute ventilation of 100 mL/kg/min. Peak inspiratory pressures (4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 mmHg) were randomly applied to assess the efficacy of PCV, and respiratory rates were adjusted to achieve a minute ventilation of 100 mL/kg/min. Blood pressure, gas leakages, and end-tidal CO were recorded from 60 trials for airway control during the use of VCV or PCV. Data were compared using Fisher's exact test with a significance level of p<0.05.

RESULTS

Leakages did not differ between VCV (1/60 events) and PCV (0/60 events; p=0.500). Hypercapnia was identified when using VCV (6/60 events) less frequently than when using PCV (7/60 events; p=0.762), but did not reach statistical significance. Hypotension (mean arterial blood pressure <60 mmHg) occurred less frequently with VCV (0/60 events) than with PCV (9/60 events; p=0.003). Moreover, VCV provided a significantly lower work of breathing (151.10±65.40 cmHO mL) compared with PCV (187.84±89.72 cmHO mL; p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

VCV in cats using a cuffed ETT causes less hypotension than PCV. It should be noted that VCV provides a more stable tidal volume compared with PCV, resulting in a more stable minute volume. Nonetheless, VCV should not be used in patients with an airway obstruction because higher peak airway pressure may occur and lead to lung injury.

摘要

背景与目的

机械通气对于全身麻醉患者呼吸功能的支持至关重要。对于肺容量有限的猫,容量控制通气(VCV)和压力控制通气(PCV)对呼吸功能的不同影响仍不明确。本研究的目的是比较在全身麻醉下使用带套囊气管内导管(ETT)的猫中VCV和PCV的效果。

材料与方法

将12只健康猫随机分为VCV组或PCV组。随机应用5种潮气量(6、8、10、12和14 mL/kg)来评估VCV的效果,并调整呼吸频率以达到100 mL/kg/min的分钟通气量。随机应用吸气峰压(4、5、6、7和8 mmHg)来评估PCV的效果,并调整呼吸频率以达到100 mL/kg/min的分钟通气量。在使用VCV或PCV期间,从60次气道控制试验中记录血压、漏气情况和呼气末二氧化碳。数据采用Fisher精确检验进行比较,显著性水平为p<0.05。

结果

VCV(1/60次事件)和PCV(0/60次事件;p=0.500)之间的漏气情况没有差异。使用VCV时发生高碳酸血症(6/60次事件)的频率低于使用PCV时(7/60次事件;p=0.762),但未达到统计学显著性。与PCV(9/60次事件;p=0.003)相比,VCV导致低血压(平均动脉血压<60 mmHg)的频率更低。此外,与PCV(187.84±89.72 cmH₂O mL)相比,VCV的呼吸功显著更低(151.10±65.40 cmH₂O mL;p<0.05)。

结论

在使用带套囊ETT的猫中,VCV比PCV导致的低血压更少。需要注意的是,与PCV相比,VCV提供的潮气量更稳定,从而导致分钟通气量更稳定。尽管如此,气道阻塞患者不应使用VCV,因为可能会出现更高的气道峰压并导致肺损伤。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1bf2/8613800/2f41759a5b38/Vetworld-14-2568-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验