Staudinger T, Kordova H, Röggla M, Tesinsky P, Locker G J, Laczika K, Knapp S, Frass M
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Vienna, Austria.
Crit Care Med. 1998 Sep;26(9):1518-22. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199809000-00018.
To assess the oxygen cost of breathing with either pressure-support ventilation (PSV) or biphasic intermittent positive airway pressure ventilation (BIPAP).
Prospective, randomized, crossover study.
Medical intensive care unit of a university hospital.
Twenty clinically stable and spontaneously breathing patients after long-term mechanical ventilation.
Patients were randomized to start on either PSV or BIPAP, and measurements were performed after an adaptation period of 30 mins. Immediately after, the ventilatory mode was changed and after another 30-min adaptation period, the same measurements were performed.
Indirect calorimetry was performed during each ventilatory mode for a period of 30 mins. Oxygen consumption, energy expenditure, CO2 production, and respiratory quotient did not differ significantly between the two ventilatory modes, regardless of the patients' randomization. There were no statistically significant differences with regard to respiratory rate, minute volume, and blood gas analysis. All patients tolerated both ventilatory modes without any signs of discomfort.
Pressure support ventilation and BIPAP are both used for weaning patients gradually from the ventilator. BIPAP may be advantageous in patients not breathing sufficiently with PSV, since no patient effort is necessary with use of this ventilatory mode.
评估压力支持通气(PSV)或双相间歇正压通气(BIPAP)时的呼吸氧耗。
前瞻性、随机、交叉研究。
大学医院的医学重症监护病房。
20例长期机械通气后临床状况稳定且自主呼吸的患者。
患者随机开始使用PSV或BIPAP,在30分钟的适应期后进行测量。之后立即更换通气模式,在另一个30分钟的适应期后,进行相同的测量。
在每种通气模式下进行30分钟的间接热量测定。两种通气模式下的氧耗、能量消耗、二氧化碳产生和呼吸商均无显著差异,与患者的随机分组无关。呼吸频率、分钟通气量和血气分析也无统计学显著差异。所有患者均耐受两种通气模式,无任何不适迹象。
压力支持通气和BIPAP均用于使患者逐渐脱离呼吸机。对于使用PSV时呼吸不足的患者,BIPAP可能具有优势,因为使用这种通气模式无需患者用力。