Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospec
- PDF / 943,780 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 92 Downloads / 193 Views
RESEARCH
Open Access
Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressurecontrolled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study Patrick Spraider1, Judith Martini1* , Julia Abram1, Gabriel Putzer1, Bernhard Glodny2, Tobias Hell3, Tom Barnes4 and Dietmar Enk5
Abstract Background: Flow-controlled ventilation is a novel ventilation method which allows to individualize ventilation according to dynamic lung mechanic limits based on direct tracheal pressure measurement at a stable constant gas flow during inspiration and expiration. The aim of this porcine study was to compare individualized flowcontrolled ventilation (FCV) and current guideline-conform pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in long-term ventilation. Methods: Anesthetized pigs were ventilated with either FCV or PCV over a period of 10 h with a fixed FiO2 of 0.3. FCV settings were individualized by compliance-guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and peak pressure (Ppeak) titration. Flow was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the inspiration to expiration ratio (I:E ratio) was set at 1:1. PCV was performed with a PEEP of 5 cm H2O and Ppeak was set to achieve a tidal volume (VT) of 7 ml/kg. The respiratory rate was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the I:E ratio was set at 1:1.5. Repeated measurements during observation period were assessed by linear mixed-effects model. Results: In FCV (n = 6), respiratory minute volume was significantly reduced (6.0 vs 12.7, MD − 6.8 (− 8.2 to − 5.4) l/ min; p < 0.001) as compared to PCV (n = 6). Oxygenation was improved in the FCV group (paO2 119.8 vs 96.6, MD 23.2 (9.0 to 37.5) Torr; 15.97 vs 12.87, MD 3.10 (1.19 to 5.00) kPa; p = 0.010) and CO2 removal was more efficient (paCO2 40.1 vs 44.9, MD − 4.7 (− 7.4 to − 2.0) Torr; 5.35 vs 5.98, MD − 0.63 (− 0.99 to − 0.27) kPa; p = 0.006). Ppeak and driving pressure were comparable in both groups, whereas PEEP was significantly lower in FCV (p = 0.002). Computed tomography revealed a significant reduction in non-aerated lung tissue in individualized FCV (p = 0.026) and no significant difference in overdistended lung tissue, although a significantly higher VT was applied (8.2 vs 7.6, MD 0.7 (0.2 to 1.2) ml/kg; p = 0.025). (Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If mate
Data Loading...
