scholarly journals Assessment of respiratory system compliance with electrical impedance tomography using a positive end-expiratory pressure wave maneuver during pressure support ventilation: a pilot clinical study

Critical Care ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias H Becher ◽  
Simon Bui ◽  
Günther Zick ◽  
Daniel Bläser ◽  
Dirk Schädler ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 116 (6) ◽  
pp. 1227-1234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver C. Radke ◽  
Thomas Schneider ◽  
Axel R. Heller ◽  
Thea Koch

Background Positive-pressure ventilation causes a ventral redistribution of ventilation. Spontaneous breathing during general anesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway could prevent this redistribution of ventilation. We hypothesize that, compared with pressure-controlled ventilation, spontaneous breathing and pressure support ventilation reduce the extent of the redistribution of ventilation as detected by electrical impedance tomography. Methods The study was a randomized, three-armed, observational, clinical trial without blinding. With approval from the local ethics committee, we enrolled 30 nonobese patients without severe cardiac or pulmonary comorbidities who were scheduled for elective orthopedic surgery. All of the procedures were performed under general anesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway and a standardized anesthetic regimen. The center of ventilation (primary outcome) was calculated before the induction of anesthesia (AWAKE), after the placement of the laryngeal mask airway (BEGIN), before the end of anesthesia (END), and after arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Results The center of ventilation during anesthesia (BEGIN) was higher than baseline (AWAKE) in both the pressure-controlled and pressure support ventilation groups (pressure control: 55.0 vs. 48.3, pressure support: 54.7 vs. 48.8, respectively; multivariate analysis of covariance, P < 0.01), whereas the values in the spontaneous breathing group remained at baseline levels (47.9 vs. 48.5). In the postanesthesia care unit, the center of ventilation had returned to the baseline values in all groups. No adverse events were recorded. Conclusions Both pressure-controlled ventilation and pressure support ventilation induce a redistribution of ventilation toward the ventral region, as detected by electrical impedance tomography. Spontaneous breathing prevents this redistribution.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 741-751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Becher ◽  
Dirk Schädler ◽  
Philipp Rostalski ◽  
Günther Zick ◽  
Inéz Frerichs ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Po-Lan Su ◽  
Wei-Chieh Lin ◽  
Yen-Fen Ko ◽  
Kuo-Sung Cheng ◽  
Chang-Wen Chen

Abstract Purpose The positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level with best respiratory system compliance (Crs) is frequently used for PEEP selection in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. On occasion, two similar best Crs (where the difference between the Crs of two PEEP levels is < 1 ml/cm H2O) may be identified during decremental PEEP titration. Selecting PEEP under such conditions is challenging. The aim of this study was to provide supplementary rationale for PEEP selection by assessing the global and regional ventilation distributions between two PEEP levels in this situation. Methods Eight ARDS cases with similar best Crs at two different PEEP levels were analyzed using examination-specific electrical impedance tomography (EIT) measures and airway stress index (SIaw). Five Crs were measured at PEEP values of 25 cm H2O (PEEP25), 20 cm H2O (PEEP20), 15 cm H2O (PEEPH), 11 cm H2O (PEEPI), and 7 cm H2O (PEEPL). The higher PEEP value of the two PEEPs with similar best Crs was designated as PEEPupper, while the lower designated as PEEPlower. Results PEEPH and PEEPI shared the best Crs in two cases, while similar Crs was found at PEEPI and PEEPL in the remaining six cases. SIaw was higher with PEEPupper as compared to PEEPlower (1.06 ± 0.10 versus 0.99 ± 0.09, p = 0.05). Proportion of lung hyperdistension was significantly higher with PEEPupper than PEEPlower (7.0 ± 5.1% versus 0.3 ± 0.5%, p = 0.0002). In contrast, proportion of recruitable lung collapse was higher with PEEPlower than PEEPupper (18.6 ± 4.4% versus 5.9 ± 3.7%, p < 0.0001). Cyclic alveolar collapse and reopening during tidal breathing was higher at PEEPlower than PEEPupper (34.4 ± 19.3% versus 16.0 ± 9.1%, p = 0.046). The intratidal gas distribution (ITV) index was also significantly higher at PEEPlower than PEEPupper (2.6 ± 1.3 versus 1.8 ± 0.7, p = 0.042). Conclusions PEEPupper is a rational selection in ARDS cases with two similar best Crs. EIT provides additional information for the selection of PEEP in such circumstances.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document