Lescroart Mickael, Pequignot Benjamin, Bitker Laurent, Pina Héloïse, Tran N'Guyen, Hébert Jean-Louis, Richard Jean-Christophe, Lévy Bruno, Koszutski Matthieu
CHRU Nancy, Service de Médecine Intensive et Réanimation, Hôpital Brabois, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
INSERM U 1116, Groupe Choc, Équipe 2, Faculté de Médecine, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 May 17;9:883950. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.883950. eCollection 2022.
The current standard of care during severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is based on low tidal volume (VT) ventilation, at 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight. The time-controlled adaptive ventilation (TCAV) is an alternative strategy, based on specific settings of the airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) mode. Briefly, TCAV reduces lung injury, including: (1) an improvement in alveolar recruitment and homogeneity; (2) reduction in alveolar and alveolar duct micro-strain and stress-risers. TCAV can result in higher intra-thoracic pressures and thus impair hemodynamics resulting from heart-lung interactions. The objective of our study was to compare hemodynamics between TCAV and conventional protective ventilation in a porcine ARDS model.
In 10 pigs (63-73 kg), lung injury was induced by repeated bronchial saline lavages followed by 2 h of injurious ventilation. The animals were then randomized into two groups: (1) Conventional protective ventilation with a VT of 6 mL/kg and PEEP adjusted to a plateau pressure set between 28 and 30 cmHO; (2) TCAV group with P-high set between 27 and 29 cmHO, P-low at 0 cmHO, T-low adjusted to terminate at 75% of the expiratory flow peak, and T-high at 3-4 s, with I:E > 6:1.
Both lung elastance and PaO:FiO were consistent with severe ARDS after 2 h of injurious mechanical ventilation. There was no significant difference in systemic arterial blood pressure, pulmonary blood pressure or cardiac output between Conventional protective ventilation and TCAV. Levels of total PEEP were significantly higher in the TCAV group ( < 0.05). Driving pressure and lung elastance were significantly lower in the TCAV group ( < 0.05).
No hemodynamic adverse events were observed in the TCAV group compared as to the standard protective ventilation group in this swine ARDS model, and TCAV appeared to be beneficial to the respiratory system.
在严重急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)期间,当前的标准治疗方案是基于低潮气量(VT)通气,即预测体重6 mL/kg。时间控制适应性通气(TCAV)是一种基于气道压力释放通气(APRV)模式特定设置的替代策略。简而言之,TCAV可减轻肺损伤,包括:(1)改善肺泡复张和均匀性;(2)减少肺泡和肺泡导管的微应变及应力集中点。TCAV会导致胸内压升高,从而因心肺相互作用而损害血流动力学。我们研究的目的是在猪ARDS模型中比较TCAV与传统保护性通气之间的血流动力学差异。
在10头猪(63 - 73 kg)中,通过反复支气管盐水灌洗诱导肺损伤,随后进行2小时的损伤性通气。然后将动物随机分为两组:(1)传统保护性通气组,VT为6 mL/kg,呼气末正压(PEEP)调整至使平台压维持在28至30 cmH₂O之间;(2)TCAV组,高气道压力(P-high)设置在27至29 cmH₂O之间,低气道压力(P-low)为0 cmH₂O,低时间(T-low)调整为在呼气流量峰值的75%时终止,高时间(T-high)为3 - 4秒,吸呼比(I:E)> 6:1。
在2小时的损伤性机械通气后,肺弹性和动脉血氧分压与吸入氧浓度之比(PaO₂:FiO₂)均符合重度ARDS表现。传统保护性通气组与TCAV组在体循环动脉血压、肺动脉血压或心输出量方面无显著差异。TCAV组的总PEEP水平显著更高(P < 0.05)。TCAV组的驱动压和肺弹性显著更低(P < 0.05)。
在此猪ARDS模型中,与标准保护性通气组相比,TCAV组未观察到血流动力学不良事件,且TCAV似乎对呼吸系统有益。