Stewart T E, Meade M O, Cook D J, Granton J T, Hodder R V, Lapinsky S E, Mazer C D, McLean R F, Rogovein T S, Schouten B D, Todd T R, Slutsky A S
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Wellesley Central Hospital, ON, Canada.
N Engl J Med. 1998 Feb 5;338(6):355-61. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199802053380603.
A strategy of mechanical ventilation that limits airway pressure and tidal volume while permitting hypercapnia has been recommended for patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. The goal is to reduce lung injury due to overdistention. However, the efficacy of this approach has not been established.
Within 24 hours of intubation, patients at high risk for the acute respiratory distress syndrome were randomly assigned to either pressure- and volume-limited ventilation (limited-ventilation group), with the peak inspiratory pressure maintained at 30 cm of water or less and the tidal volume at 8 ml per kilogram of body weight or less, or to conventional ventilation (control group), with the peak inspiratory pressure allowed to rise as high as 50 cm of water and the tidal volume at 10 to 15 ml per kilogram. All other ventilatory variables were similar in the two groups.
A total of 120 patients with similar clinical features underwent randomization (60 in each group). The patients in the limited-ventilation and control groups were exposed to different mean (+/-SD) tidal volumes (7.2+/-0.8 vs. 10.8+/-1.0 ml per kilogram, respectively; P<0.001) and peak inspiratory pressures (23.6+/-5.8 vs. 34.0+/-11.0 cm of water, P<0.001). Mortality was 50 percent in the limited-ventilation group and 47 percent in the control group (relative risk, 1.07; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.57; P=0.72). In the limited-ventilation group, permissive hypercapnia (arterial carbon dioxide tension, >50 mm Hg) was more common (52 percent vs. 28 percent, P=0.009), more marked (54.4+/-18.8 vs. 45.7+/-9.8 mm Hg, P=0.002), and more prolonged (146+/-265 vs. 25+/-22 hours, P=0.017) than in the control group. The incidence of barotrauma, the highest multiple-organ-dysfunction score, and the number of episodes of organ failure were similar in the two groups; however, the numbers of patients who required paralytic agents (23 vs. 13, P=0.05) and dialysis for renal failure (13 vs. 5, P= 0.04) were greater in the limited-ventilation group than in the control group.
In patients at high risk for the acute respiratory distress syndrome, a strategy of mechanical ventilation that limits peak inspiratory pressure and tidal volume does not appear to reduce mortality and may increase morbidity.
对于急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者,推荐采用一种限制气道压力和潮气量同时允许高碳酸血症的机械通气策略。目的是减少因过度扩张导致的肺损伤。然而,这种方法的疗效尚未得到证实。
在插管后24小时内,将急性呼吸窘迫综合征高危患者随机分为压力和容量限制通气组(限制通气组),使吸气峰压维持在30厘米水柱或更低,潮气量为每千克体重8毫升或更低;或分为传统通气组(对照组),吸气峰压允许升至50厘米水柱,潮气量为每千克体重10至15毫升。两组的所有其他通气变量相似。
共有120例临床特征相似的患者进行了随机分组(每组60例)。限制通气组和对照组患者的平均(±标准差)潮气量不同(分别为7.2±0.8与10.8±1.0毫升/千克,P<0.001),吸气峰压也不同(23.6±5.8与34.0±11.0厘米水柱,P<0.001)。限制通气组的死亡率为50%,对照组为47%(相对危险度,1.07;95%可信区间,0.72至1.57;P=0.72)。在限制通气组,允许性高碳酸血症(动脉二氧化碳分压>50毫米汞柱)更常见(52%对28%,P=0.009),更明显(54.4±18.8与45.7±9.8毫米汞柱,P=0.002),且持续时间更长(146±265与25±22小时,P=0.017)。两组气压伤的发生率、最高多器官功能障碍评分以及器官衰竭的发作次数相似;然而,限制通气组需要使用麻痹剂的患者数量(23例对13例,P=0.05)和因肾衰竭需要透析的患者数量(13例对5例,P=0.04)均多于对照组。
对于急性呼吸窘迫综合征高危患者,限制吸气峰压和潮气量的机械通气策略似乎不能降低死亡率,反而可能增加发病率。