Simonneau G, Lemaire F, Harf A, Carlet J, Teisseire B
Intensive Care Med. 1982 Mar;8(2):61-7. doi: 10.1007/BF01694868.
Positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) produces cardiopulmonary effects whether administered by controlled positive pressure ventilation (CPPV) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). In eight patients with acute respiratory failure, the effects of 20 cm PEEP administered via CPPV and CPAP were compared. An esophageal balloon was used to calculate the transmural vascular pressures. The control values under mechanical ventilation with no PEEP (IPPV) for PaO2 and QS/QT (FiO2 being 1.0) were respectively 132 +/- 15 mmHg and 31 +/- 3%; CPPV gave a PaO2 of 369 +/- 27 mmHg and QS/QT fo 14 +/- 1.6%, CPAP 365 +/- 18 mmHg and 18 +/- 1.3% respectively. The two different modes of ventilation (CPPV and CPAP) gave identical blood gas improvement through the same level of end expiratory transpulmonary pressure despite marked differences between absolute mean airway and esophageal pressures. Conversely, hemodynamic tolerance was very different from one technique to the other: CPPV depressed cardiac index from 3.4 +/- 0.3 to 2.4 +/- 0.2 1/min/m2 as well as decreasing transmural filling pressures, suggesting a reduction in venous return. Conversely, filling pressures maintained at control values during CPAP and cardiac indexes were unchanged.
呼气末正压(PEEP)无论是通过控制正压通气(CPPV)还是持续气道正压(CPAP)给药,都会产生心肺效应。对8例急性呼吸衰竭患者比较了通过CPPV和CPAP给予20cm PEEP的效果。使用食管气囊计算跨壁血管压力。在无PEEP(IPPV)的机械通气下,PaO2和QS/QT(FiO2为1.0)的对照值分别为132±15mmHg和31±3%;CPPV时PaO2为369±27mmHg,QS/QT为14±1.6%,CPAP时分别为365±18mmHg和18±1.3%。尽管绝对平均气道压力和食管压力之间存在显著差异,但两种不同的通气模式(CPPV和CPAP)通过相同水平的呼气末跨肺压产生了相同的血气改善。相反,两种技术之间的血流动力学耐受性差异很大:CPPV使心脏指数从3.4±0.3降至2.4±0.2l/min/m2,同时跨壁充盈压降低,提示静脉回流减少。相反,CPAP期间充盈压维持在对照值,心脏指数未改变。