Effect of inspiratory synchronization during pressure-controlled ventilation on lung distension and inspiratory effort

Annals of Intensive Care

卷:7

Jordi Mancebo¹  Jean-Christophe M. Richard²  Nuttapol Rittayamai³  Lu Chen³  François Beloncle³  Ewan C. Goligher³  Laurent Brochard³ 

[1] Centre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l, Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), University of Montreal’;

[2] Emergency Department, General Hospital of Annecy;

[3] Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto;

关键词: Airway pressure release ventilation;    Lung-protective ventilation;    Spontaneous ventilation;    Transpulmonary pressure;    Ventilator-induced lung injury;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13613-017-0324-z

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background In pressure-controlled (PC) ventilation, tidal volume (V T) and transpulmonary pressure (P L ) result from the addition of ventilator pressure and the patient’s inspiratory effort. PC modes can be classified into fully, partially, and non-synchronized modes, and the degree of synchronization may result in different V T and P L despite identical ventilator settings. This study assessed the effects of three PC modes on V T, P L , inspiratory effort (esophageal pressure–time product, PTPes), and airway occlusion pressure, P 0.1. We also assessed whether P 0.1 can be used for evaluating patient effort. Methods Prospective, randomized, crossover physiologic study performed in 14 spontaneously breathing mechanically ventilated patients recovering from acute respiratory failure (1 subsequently withdrew). PC modes were fully (PC-CMV), partially (PC-SIMV), and non-synchronized (PC-IMV using airway pressure release ventilation) and were applied randomly; driving pressure, inspiratory time, and set respiratory rate being similar for all modes. Airway, esophageal pressure, P 0.1, airflow, gas exchange, and hemodynamics were recorded. Results V T was significantly lower during PC-IMV as compared with PC-SIMV and PC-CMV (387 ± 105 vs 458 ± 134 vs 482 ± 108 mL, respectively; p < 0.05). Maximal P L was also significantly lower (13.3 ± 4.9 vs 15.3 ± 5.7 vs 15.5 ± 5.2 cmH2O, respectively; p < 0.05), but PTPes was significantly higher in PC-IMV (215.6 ± 154.3 vs 150.0 ± 102.4 vs 130.9 ± 101.8 cmH2O × s × min−1, respectively; p < 0.05), with no differences in gas exchange and hemodynamic variables. PTPes increased by more than 15% in 10 patients and by more than 50% in 5 patients. An increased P 0.1 could identify high levels of PTPes. Conclusions Non-synchronized PC mode lowers V T and P L in comparison with more synchronized modes in spontaneously breathing patients but can increase patient effort and may need specific adjustments. Clinical Trial Registration Clinicaltrial.gov # NCT02071277

【 授权许可】

Unknown