González Zambrano L, San Román E, Gallesio A O, Prados A F, Principe G J
Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Medicina (B Aires). 1997;57(4):391-6.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the hemodynamic and respiratory variations in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) under two conditions: volume controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure controlled inverse ratio ventilation (PCIRV). Seventeen patients with ARDS and the following criteria were included: lung injury score > 2.5 and peak inspiratory pressure > or = 40 cm H2O under VCV, constant flow and I/E ratio of 1/2. Measurements were obtained in VCV and after one hour in PCIRV with I/E ratio 2/1 using a similar PEEP value than VCV. PCIRV was accompanied by a significant lower tidal volume (736.10 +/- 119.20 vs 540.35 +/- 84.66 p < 0.001), peak inspiratory pressure (43.60 +/- 5.50 vs 26.26 +/- 3.47 p < 0.0001) and plateau pressure (37.64 +/- 3.70 vs 25.30 +/- 3.50 p < 0.001) and a significant higher: respiratory frequency (17.70 +/- 2.10 vs 20.94 +/- 3.38 p < 0.002), mean airway pressure (16.20 +/- 3.00 vs 19.41 +/- 2.80 p < 0.003) and static compliance (25.84 +/- 5.42 vs 35.18 +/- 9.39 p < 0.002). Similar values in the hemodynamic and oxygenation variables were observed between both groups. Our results show that PCIRV allow to ventilate patients with lower peak inspiratory and plateau pressures without significant changes in hemodynamic and oxygenation parameters. The conventional tidal volumes are excessive for lungs with SDRA, which is shown with the improvement in the static compliance and the airway pressures in PCIRV. PCIRV mode at the same PEEPt level as VCV, with normal I/E ratio does not improve the oxygenation, despite the higher level of the mean airway pressure.
本研究的目的是评估急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者在两种情况下的血流动力学和呼吸变化:容量控制通气(VCV)和压力控制反比通气(PCIRV)。纳入了17例符合以下标准的ARDS患者:肺损伤评分>2.5,VCV下吸气峰压>或=40 cm H2O,恒定流速,吸呼比为1/2。在VCV时以及在PCIRV(吸呼比为2/1)一小时后,使用与VCV相似的呼气末正压(PEEP)值进行测量。PCIRV伴随着显著更低的潮气量(736.10±119.20 vs 540.35±84.66,p<0.001)、吸气峰压(43.60±5.50 vs 26.26±3.47,p<0.0001)和平台压(37.64±3.70 vs 25.30±3.50,p<0.001),以及显著更高的:呼吸频率(17.70±2.10 vs 20.94±3.38,p<0.002)、平均气道压(16.20±3.00 vs 19.41±2.80,p<0.003)和静态顺应性(25.84±5.42 vs 35.18±9.39,p<0.002)。两组之间在血流动力学和氧合变量方面观察到相似的值。我们的结果表明,PCIRV能够在吸气峰压和平台压较低的情况下对患者进行通气,而血流动力学和氧合参数无显著变化。对于重度急性呼吸窘迫综合征(SDRA)的肺,传统潮气量过大,这在PCIRV中静态顺应性和气道压力的改善中得到体现。与VCV处于相同PEEPt水平、吸呼比正常的PCIRV模式,尽管平均气道压较高,但并未改善氧合。