Valta P, Corbeil C, Lavoie A, Campodonico R, Koulouris N, Chassé M, Braidy J, Milic-Emili J
Respiratory Division, Hôpital Saint-Luc, Université de Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994 Nov;150(5 Pt 1):1311-7. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.150.5.7952558.
Two new methods, application of negative pressure at the airway opening during expiration (NEP) and reduction of flow resistance by bypassing the expiratory line of the ventilator by exhaling into the atmosphere (ATM), were used to detect expiratory flow limitation in 12 semirecumbent (45 degree) mechanically ventilated patients, seven with chronic airway obstruction (CAO). An increase of expiratory flow with NEP or ATM, relative to the preceding control breath, was taken as indicating absence of expiratory flow limitation. By contrast, the portion of the tidal expiration over which there was no change in flow with NEP or ATM was considered as flow-limited. With NEP, nine patients exhibited flow limitation, six (all with CAO) were flow-limited over most of the tidal expiration (> 70% VT), and three at < 60% VT. Although the results with NEP and ATM were in general in good agreement, in the three non-flow-limited patients the ATM method gave erroneous results. Six patients were also studied supine, including two who were not flow-limited when semirecumbent: both became flow-limited when supine. We conclude that NEP provides a simple method to detect flow limitation in mechanically ventilated patients. The supine position enhances flow limitation.
采用两种新方法,即呼气时在气道开口处施加负压(NEP)和通过向大气中呼气绕过呼吸机呼气管道以降低气流阻力(ATM),对12例半卧位(45度)机械通气患者进行呼气气流受限检测,其中7例患有慢性气道阻塞(CAO)。与前一次对照呼吸相比,NEP或ATM使呼气气流增加被视为不存在呼气气流受限。相反,NEP或ATM时气流无变化的潮气量呼气部分被视为气流受限。使用NEP时,9例患者存在气流受限,6例(均为CAO患者)在大部分潮气量呼气过程中(>70%潮气量)气流受限,3例在<60%潮气量时气流受限。虽然NEP和ATM的结果总体上吻合良好,但在3例无气流受限的患者中,ATM方法得出了错误结果。还对6例患者进行了仰卧位研究,其中包括2例半卧位时无气流受限的患者:这2例患者仰卧位时均出现气流受限。我们得出结论,NEP提供了一种检测机械通气患者气流受限的简单方法。仰卧位会加重气流受限。