Chidini Giovanna, Marchesi Tiziana, Catenacci Stefano Scalia, Florio Gaetano, Conti Giorgio, Lanni Stefano, Filocamo Giovanni, Patria Francesca, Guerrini Marta, Milani Gregorio, Grasselli Giacomo
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2025 Jul;35(7):562-572. doi: 10.1111/pan.15098. Epub 2025 Mar 22.
Procedural sedation interferes with respiratory dynamics in pediatric patients. It reduces lung compliance, causing the closing volume to exceed the functional residual capacity, which can result in airway collapse, atelectasis, and periods of silent desaturation.
Aims of the study were to clarify the impact of intravenous propofol sedation on ventilation distribution and to evaluate the potential benefits of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) in restoring the original ventilation distribution pattern by applying the electrical impedance tomography technology.
Single-center physiological randomized crossover study comparing two 20-min steps of NRS delivered as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) at different time points: (1) spontaneous breathing (SB-1); (2) spontaneous breathing during sedation (SB-2); (3) CPAP during sedation; (4) NIV during sedation; (5) spontaneous breathing after sedation discontinuation (SB-3). Primary endpoint was regional ventilation delay 40% (RVD40%). Secondary outcomes were global index (GI), end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI), and center of ventilation (CoV).
Thirteen children were enrolled. RVD40% increased during SB-2 compared to SB-1 (p = 0.014). NIV was effective in reducing it compared to CPAP (p = 0.009) and SB-3 (p = 0.015). NIV was also effective in restoring ventilation homogeneity and lung volume compared to SB-2 by decreasing GI (p = 0.035) and restoring EELI (p = 0.002). During NIV, the center of ventilation increased compared to SB-1 (p = 0.001), SB-2 (p = 0.004), and CPAP (p = 0.004), suggesting that ventilation was shifted toward the ventral areas of the lungs. On the other hand, CPAP was not effective in restoring RVD40, GI, and EELI to SB1 values following the induction of intravenous anesthesia with propofol at SB-2.
In this specific ventilatory setting, spontaneous breathing sedation resulted in enhanced ventilation inhomogeneity and a reduction in EELI that could be reversed by NIV but not by CPAP.
The trial was registered prior to patient enrollment at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05495477; principal investigator: Giovanna Chidini; date of registration: August 10, 2022). Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines were followed, and the study was conducted according to the Helsinki 1964 Ethical Declaration Standard, revised in 2008.
程序镇静会干扰儿科患者的呼吸动力学。它会降低肺顺应性,导致闭合气量超过功能残气量,这可能会导致气道塌陷、肺不张和无声性血氧饱和度下降期。
本研究的目的是阐明静脉注射丙泊酚镇静对通气分布的影响,并通过应用电阻抗断层扫描技术评估无创呼吸支持(NRS)在恢复原始通气分布模式方面的潜在益处。
单中心生理随机交叉研究,比较在不同时间点以持续气道正压通气(CPAP)和无创通气(NIV)形式提供的两个20分钟的NRS步骤:(1)自主呼吸(SB-1);(2)镇静期间的自主呼吸(SB-2);(3)镇静期间的CPAP;(4)镇静期间的NIV;(5)停用镇静后的自主呼吸(SB-3)。主要终点是区域通气延迟40%(RVD40%)。次要结果是全局指数(GI)、呼气末肺阻抗(EELI)和通气中心(CoV)。
纳入了13名儿童。与SB-1相比,SB-2期间RVD40%增加(p = 0.014)。与CPAP(p = 0.009)和SB-3(p = 0.015)相比,NIV在降低RVD40%方面有效。与SB-2相比,NIV通过降低GI(p = 0.035)和恢复EELI(p = 0.002),在恢复通气均匀性和肺容量方面也有效。在NIV期间,通气中心与SB-1(p = 0.001)、SB-2(p = 0.004)和CPAP(p = 0.004)相比增加,表明通气向肺的腹侧区域转移。另一方面,在SB-2使用丙泊酚诱导静脉麻醉后,CPAP在将RVD40、GI和EELI恢复到SB1值方面无效。
在这种特定的通气环境中,自主呼吸镇静导致通气不均匀性增加和EELI降低,NIV可逆转这种情况,而CPAP则不能。
该试验在患者入组前已在Clinicaltrials.gov注册(NCT05495477;主要研究者:乔瓦娜·基迪尼;注册日期:2022年8月10日)。遵循了《报告试验的统一标准》指南,该研究按照2008年修订的1964年《赫尔辛基伦理宣言》标准进行。