Lu Q, Vieira S R, Richecoeur J, Puybasset L, Kalfon P, Coriat P, Rouby J J
Unité de Réanimation Chirurgicale, Department of Anesthesiology, La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, University of Paris VI, France.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Jan;159(1):275-82. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.159.1.9802082.
Measurement of respiratory compliance is advocated for assessing the severity of acute respiratory failure (ARF). Recently, the administration of an automated constant flow of 15 L/min was proposed as a method easier to implement at the bedside than supersyringe or inspiratory occlusions methods. However, pressure-volume (P-V) curves were shifted to the right because of the resistive properties of the respiratory system. The aim of this study was to compare the P-V curves obtained using two constant flows-3 and 9 L/min-during volume-controlled mechanical ventilation with those obtained with the supersyringe and the inspiratory occlusions methods. Fourteen paralyzed patients with ARF were studied. The supersyringe and the inspiratory occlusions methods were performed according to usual recommendations. The new automated method was performed during volume-controlled mechanical ventilation by setting the inspiratory:expiratory ratio at 80%, the respiratory frequency at 5 breaths/min, and the tidal volume at 500 or 1,500 ml. These peculiar ventilatory settings were equivalent to administering a constant flow of 3 or 9 L/min during a 9.6-s inspiration. Esophageal and airway pressures were recorded. P-V curves obtained by the 3-L/min constant-flow method were identical to those obtained by the reference methods, whereas the P-V curve obtained by the 9-L/min constant flow was slightly shifted to the right. The slopes of the P-V curves and the lower inflection points were not different between all methods, indicating that the resistive component induced by administering a constant flow equal to or less than 9 L/min is not of clinical relevance. Because the 3-L/min constant-flow method is not artifacted by the resistive properties of the respiratory system and does not require any other equipment than a ventilator, it is an easy-to-implement, inexpensive, safe, and reliable method for measuring the thoracopulmonary P-V curve at the bedside.
提倡通过测量呼吸顺应性来评估急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)的严重程度。最近,有人提出采用15 L/min的自动恒定气流给药法,认为该方法比超级注射器法或吸气阻断法更易于在床边实施。然而,由于呼吸系统的阻力特性,压力-容积(P-V)曲线向右偏移。本研究的目的是比较在容量控制机械通气期间,使用3 L/min和9 L/min两种恒定气流获得的P-V曲线与使用超级注射器法和吸气阻断法获得的P-V曲线。对14例患有ARF的瘫痪患者进行了研究。超级注射器法和吸气阻断法按照常规建议进行。新的自动方法是在容量控制机械通气期间进行的,将吸气:呼气比率设置为80%,呼吸频率设置为5次/分钟,潮气量设置为500或1500 ml。这些特殊的通气设置相当于在9.6秒的吸气过程中给予3或9 L/min的恒定气流。记录食管和气道压力。通过3 L/min恒定气流法获得的P-V曲线与参考方法获得的曲线相同,而通过9 L/min恒定气流获得的P-V曲线略有右移。所有方法之间P-V曲线的斜率和下拐点没有差异,这表明给予等于或小于9 L/min的恒定气流所引起的阻力成分不具有临床相关性。由于3 L/min恒定气流法不受呼吸系统阻力特性的影响,并且除了呼吸机外不需要任何其他设备,因此它是一种易于实施、廉价、安全且可靠的在床边测量胸肺P-V曲线的方法。