Lima Cibelle Andrade, Campos Shirley Lima, Bandeira Monique Pontes, Leite Wagner Souza, Brandão Daniella Cunha, Fernandes Juliana, Fink James B, Dornelas de Andrade Armele
Physiotherapy Depatment, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal 59078-970, RN, Brazil.
Physiotherapy Depatment, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife 50740-560, PE, Brazil.
Pharmaceutics. 2023 May 11;15(5):1466. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15051466.
Little has been reported in terms of clinical outcomes to confirm the benefits of nebulized bronchodilators during mechanical ventilation (MV). Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) could be a valuable method to elucidate this gap.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of nebulized bronchodilators during invasive MV with EIT by comparing three ventilation modes on the overall and regional lung ventilation and aeration in critically ill patients with obstructive pulmonary disease.
A blind clinical trial in which eligible patients underwent nebulization with salbutamol sulfate (5 mg/1 mL) and ipratropium bromide (0.5 mg/2 mL) in the ventilation mode they were receiving. EIT evaluation was performed before and after the intervention. A joint and stratified analysis into ventilation mode groups was performed, with < 0.05.
Five of nineteen procedures occurred in controlled MV mode, seven in assisted mode and seven in spontaneous mode. In the intra-group analysis, the nebulization increased total ventilation in controlled ( = 0.04 and ⅆ = 2) and spontaneous ( = 0.01 and ⅆ = 1.5) MV modes. There was an increase in the dependent pulmonary region in assisted mode ( = 0.01 and ⅆ = 0.3) and in spontaneous mode ( = 0.02 and ⅆ = 1.6). There was no difference in the intergroup analysis.
Nebulized bronchodilators reduce the aeration of non-dependent pulmonary regions and increase overall lung ventilation but there was no difference between the ventilation modes. As a limitation, it is important to note that the muscular effort in PSV and A/C PCV modes influences the impedance variation, and consequently the aeration and ventilation values. Thus, future studies are needed to evaluate this effort as well as the time on ventilator, time in UCI and other variables.
关于机械通气(MV)期间雾化支气管扩张剂的临床疗效,鲜有报道能证实其益处。电阻抗断层扫描(EIT)可能是阐明这一差距的有价值方法。
本研究旨在通过比较三种通气模式对患有阻塞性肺病的重症患者的全肺和局部肺通气及气体交换情况,评估在有创MV期间雾化支气管扩张剂与EIT的影响。
一项盲法临床试验,符合条件的患者在其接受的通气模式下接受硫酸沙丁胺醇(5mg/1mL)和异丙托溴铵(0.5mg/2mL)雾化治疗。在干预前后进行EIT评估。对通气模式组进行联合分层分析,P<0.05。
19例操作中有5例发生在控制MV模式下,7例在辅助模式下,7例在自主模式下。在组内分析中,雾化治疗增加了控制MV模式(P = 0.04,d = 2)和自主MV模式(P = 0.01,d = 1.5)下的总通气量。在辅助模式(P = 0.01,d = 0.3)和自主模式(P = 0.02,d = 1.6)下,依赖肺区的通气量增加。组间分析无差异。
雾化支气管扩张剂可减少非依赖肺区的气体交换,增加全肺通气,但通气模式之间无差异。作为一个局限性,需要注意的是,压力支持通气(PSV)和辅助/控制压力控制通气(A/C PCV)模式下的肌肉用力会影响阻抗变化,进而影响气体交换和通气值。因此,未来需要研究评估这种用力情况以及机械通气时间、重症监护病房(ICU)停留时间和其他变量。