Mancebo J, Vallverdú I, Bak E, Domínguez G, Subirana M, Benito S, Net A
Servei de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital de la Sta. Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.
Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 1994 Jun;49(3):201-7.
Volume-controlled ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (CPPV) is the conventional ventilatory approach in adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients, but some reports suggest that pressure-controlled ventilation with an inverse inspiratory to expiratory ratio (PCIRV) may improve gas exchange in these patients. We analysed the acute effects on gas exchange, lung mechanics and haemodynamics induced by CPPV and PCIRV in ARDS patients. CPPV and PCIRV were applied randomly in ARDS patients. During CPPV, external PEEP was titrated according to the initial inflection point in the static pressure-volume (P-V) curve of the respiratory system, or it was 10 cmH2O when there was no inflection. During PCIRV, external PEEP was not applied, and inspiratory to expiratory (I/E) ratio was inversed until total PEEP was equal to the inflection point in the P-V curve, or it was 10 cmH2O. Respiratory rate, fractional inspiratory oxygen (FIO2), and tidal volume (VT) were kept constant in both modes. Eight ARDS patients were studied prospectively and admitted to a general Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a University Hospital. Haemodynamic measurements, airflow (V), airway pressure (Paw) and VT were obtained using standard methods. We did not observe any significant change between CPPV and PCIRV with respect to: arterial oxygen tension (PaO2) 117 +/- 12 vs 107 +/- 15 mmHg (16 +/- 2 vs 14 +/- 2 kPa), arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) 40 +/- 2 vs 39 +/- 2 mmHg (6 +/- 0.3 vs 5 +/- 0.3 kPa), intrapulmonary shunt function (QS/QT) 36 +/- 3 vs 38 +/- 4%, cardiac output (CO) 7.1 +/- 0.7 vs 7 +/- 0.8 l.min-1, and total PEEP 9.7 +/- 0.6 vs 9 +/- 0.3 cmH2O. Oxygen transport and total respiratory system compliance remained unchanged in both modes. Mean Paw was slightly lower during CPPV (17 +/- 1 cmH2O) than during PCIRV (19 +/- 1 cmH2O). PCIRV does not appear to have clinical advantages over CPPV in terms of gas exchange, haemodynamics, or static lung mechanics when using the same total PEEP and minute ventilation.
采用呼气末正压(PEEP)的容量控制通气(CPPV)是成人呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者的传统通气方法,但一些报告表明,采用反比吸气与呼气比的压力控制通气(PCIRV)可能会改善这些患者的气体交换。我们分析了CPPV和PCIRV对ARDS患者气体交换、肺力学和血流动力学的急性影响。在ARDS患者中随机应用CPPV和PCIRV。在CPPV期间,根据呼吸系统静态压力-容积(P-V)曲线的初始拐点滴定外部PEEP,若没有拐点则为10 cmH₂O。在PCIRV期间,不应用外部PEEP,将吸气与呼气(I/E)比反转,直到总PEEP等于P-V曲线中的拐点,或为10 cmH₂O。两种模式下呼吸频率、吸入氧分数(FIO₂)和潮气量(VT)均保持恒定。对8例ARDS患者进行前瞻性研究,并入住大学医院的普通重症监护病房(ICU)。使用标准方法进行血流动力学测量、气流(V)、气道压力(Paw)和VT测量。我们未观察到CPPV和PCIRV在以下方面有任何显著变化:动脉血氧分压(PaO₂)117±12 vs 107±15 mmHg(16±2 vs 14±2 kPa)、动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO₂)40±2 vs 39±2 mmHg(6±0.3 vs 5±0.3 kPa)、肺内分流功能(QS/QT)36±3 vs 38±4%、心输出量(CO)7.1±0.7 vs 7±0.8 l·min⁻¹以及总PEEP 9.7±0.6 vs 9±0.3 cmH₂O。两种模式下氧输送和总呼吸系统顺应性均保持不变。CPPV期间的平均Paw(17±1 cmH₂O)略低于PCIRV期间(19±1 cmH₂O)。当使用相同的总PEEP和分钟通气量时,在气体交换、血流动力学或静态肺力学方面,PCIRV似乎并不比CPPV具有临床优势。