Van der Touw T, Tully A, Amis T C, Brancatisano A, Rynn M, Mudaliar Y, Engel L A
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Westmead Hospital, Australia.
Crit Care Med. 1993 Dec;21(12):1908-14. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199312000-00019.
To measure and compare the effects of manual expiratory compression of either the rib cage or abdomen on cardiac output, end-expiratory lung volume, and other cardiorespiratory variables in an animal model that mimics the severe pulmonary hyperinflation and hemodynamic impairment occurring in patients with severe acute asthma during mechanical ventilation.
Prospective, randomized, crossover trial.
Research laboratory.
Seven cross-bred, anesthetized, supine dogs.
The following sequence was employed: a) spontaneous breathing without pulmonary hyperinflation; b) positive-pressure ventilation with severe pulmonary hyperinflation (produced by an external variable expiratory flow resistor); c) approximately 7 mins of manual expiratory compression of either the rib cage or abdomen during positive-pressure ventilation-hyperinflation. This sequence was then repeated, incorporating the alternative type of expiratory compression.
Cardiac output (measured by thermodilution), aortic pressure, pleural (esophageal) pressure, and changes in end-expiratory lung volume were measured. The decrease in cardiac output due to mechanical ventilation with pulmonary hyperinflation was exacerbated by rib cage compression (p < .001; spontaneous breathing 2.9 +/- 0.2 L/min, hyperinflation 1.5 +/- 0.1 L/min, and rib cage compression 1.0 +/- 0.1 [SEM] L/min). However, the positive-pressure ventilation-hyperinflation-induced decrease in cardiac output was attenuated by abdominal compression (p < .001; spontaneous breathing 3.3 +/- 0.2 L/min, hyperinflation 1.4 +/- 0.1 L/min, and abdominal compression 2.1 +/- 0.1 L/min). Mean aortic pressure returned to prehyperinflation levels during abdominal compression (p < .001; spontaneous breathing 126 +/- 2 mm Hg, hyperinflation 75 +/- 5 mm Hg, and abdominal compression 120 +/- 3 mm Hg). Both types of compression were similarly effective (p > .75) in increasing mean expiratory pleural pressure, so that end-expiratory lung volume was similarly (p > .25) reduced (0.45 +/- 0.05 and 0.40 +/- 0.05 L for rib cage and abdominal compressions, respectively) in this non-air flow, limiting animal model.
The cardiorespiratory effects of manually compressing the rib cage or abdomen during expiration in this animal study suggest that these techniques should be carefully evaluated in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute asthma.
在一个模拟重症急性哮喘患者机械通气时发生的严重肺过度充气和血流动力学损害的动物模型中,测量并比较胸廓或腹部手动呼气按压对心输出量、呼气末肺容积及其他心肺变量的影响。
前瞻性、随机、交叉试验。
研究实验室。
7只杂交、麻醉、仰卧的犬。
采用以下顺序:a)无肺过度充气的自主呼吸;b)伴有严重肺过度充气的正压通气(由外部可变呼气流量电阻器产生);c)在正压通气-肺过度充气期间对胸廓或腹部进行约7分钟的手动呼气按压。然后重复该顺序,采用另一种呼气按压方式。
测量心输出量(通过热稀释法测量)、主动脉压、胸膜(食管)压及呼气末肺容积的变化。胸廓按压会加剧因伴有肺过度充气的机械通气导致的心输出量下降(p <.001;自主呼吸时为2.9±0.2升/分钟,肺过度充气时为1.5±0.1升/分钟,胸廓按压时为1.0±0.1[标准误]升/分钟)。然而,腹部按压可减轻正压通气-肺过度充气引起的心输出量下降(p <.001;自主呼吸时为3.3±0.2升/分钟,肺过度充气时为1.4±0.1升/分钟,腹部按压时为2.1±0.1升/分钟)。腹部按压期间平均主动脉压恢复到肺过度充气前水平(p <.001;自主呼吸时为126±2毫米汞柱,肺过度充气时为75±5毫米汞柱,腹部按压时为120±3毫米汞柱)。在增加平均呼气胸膜压方面,两种按压方式效果相似(p >.75),因此在这个非气流限制的动物模型中,呼气末肺容积下降程度相似(p >.25)(胸廓按压和腹部按压分别为0.45±0.05升和0.40±0.05升)。
在该动物研究中,呼气时手动按压胸廓或腹部的心肺效应表明,对于机械通气的重症急性哮喘患者,应仔细评估这些技术。