scholarly journals The effects of positive end-expiratory pressure in alveolar recruitment during mechanical ventilation in pigs

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 310-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Ribeiro Madke ◽  
Eduardo Sperb Pilla ◽  
Pablo Geraldo Sanchez ◽  
Rafael Foernges ◽  
Gustavo Grün ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of alveolar recruitment based on mean airway pressure (MAP) on pig lungs submitted to thoracotomy through blood gas exchange and hemodynamic parameters. METHODS: Twelve pigs weighting approximately 25Kg were intubated and ventilated on volume controlled ventilation (tidal volume 10ml/Kg, respiratory rate 16min, FiO2 1.0, inspiratory:expiratory ratio 1:2, PEEP 5cmH2O). The animals were then randomized into two groups: control and left lateral thoracotomy. The PEEP was increased at each 15-minute intervals to reach a MAP of 15, 20 and 25cmH2O, respectively. Hemodynamic, gas exchange and respiratory mechanic data were measured immediately before each PEEP change. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between both groups in all parameters analyzed (P=1.0). The PaO2, PaCO2, MAP, PAP and plateau pressure were significantly worse at MAP of 25cmH2O, when compared with the other values of MAP (P=0.001, P=0.039, P=0.001, P=0.016 e P=0.027, respectively). The best pulmonary performance according to the analyzed parameters was observed at MAP of 20cmH2O. CONCLUSION: PEEP adjusted to MAP of 20cmH2O resulted in best arterial oxygenation, without compromising the venous return, as opposed to MAP of 25cmH2O, which caused deterioration of gas exchange, hemodynamics and respiratory mechanic.

Critical Care ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Santini ◽  
Tommaso Mauri ◽  
Francesca Dalla Corte ◽  
Elena Spinelli ◽  
Antonio Pesenti

Abstract Background High inspiratory flow might damage the lungs by mechanisms not fully understood yet. We hypothesized that increasing inspiratory flow would increase lung stress, ventilation heterogeneity, and pendelluft in ARDS patients undergoing volume-controlled ventilation with constant tidal volume and that higher PEEP levels would reduce this phenomenon. Methods Ten ARDS patients were studied during protective volume-controlled ventilation. Three inspiratory flows (400, 800, and 1200 ml/s) and two PEEP levels (5 and 15 cmH2O) were applied in random order to each patient. Airway and esophageal pressures were recorded, end-inspiratory and end-expiratory holds were performed, and ventilation distribution was measured with electrical impedance tomography. Peak and plateau airway and transpulmonary pressures were recorded, together with the airway and transpulmonary pressure corresponding to the first point of zero end-inspiratory flow (P1). Ventilation heterogeneity was measured by the EIT-based global inhomogeneity (GI) index. Pendelluft was measured as the absolute difference between pixel-level inflation measured at plateau pressure minus P1. Results Plateau airway and transpulmonary pressure was not affected by inspiratory flow, while P1 increased at increasing inspiratory flow. The difference between P1 and plateau pressure was higher at higher flows at both PEEP levels (p < 0.001). While higher PEEP reduced heterogeneity of ventilation, higher inspiratory flow increased GI (p = 0.05), irrespective of the PEEP level. Finally, gas volume undergoing pendelluft was larger at higher inspiratory flow (p < 0.001), while PEEP had no effect. Conclusions The present exploratory analysis suggests that higher inspiratory flow increases additional inspiratory pressure, heterogeneity of ventilation, and pendelluft while PEEP has negligible effects on these flow-dependent phenomena. The clinical significance of these findings needs to be further clarified.


1992 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 479-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Eberhard ◽  
J. Guttmann ◽  
G. Wolff ◽  
W. Bertschmann ◽  
A. Minzer ◽  
...  

Under mechanical volume-controlled ventilation, the intensive care patient can develop intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (iPEEP); that is, the passive expiration is terminated by the following inspiration before the alveolar pressure comes to its physical equilibrium value. We present a mathematical method to estimate this alveolar dynamic iPEEP breath by breath, without the need of a maneuver. We tested it in paralyzed patients ventilated for adult respiratory distress syndrome after multiple trauma and/or sepsis, and we compared the results obtained with the new mathematical method with those from the occlusion method introduced by Pepe and Marini. The results agreed well (median difference of 0.8 mbar in 201 investigations in 12 patients). However, the mathematically determined values, representing dynamic iPEEP, are systematically slightly smaller than those measured by the occlusion maneuver. A variation of expiratory time suggests that this difference might be due to mechanical time-constant inhomogeneity, viscoelastic processes, or other mechanisms showing time dependence.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-Wei Liu ◽  
Yan Jin ◽  
Tao Ma ◽  
Bo Qu ◽  
Zhi Liu

This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of open endotracheal suctioning on gas exchange and respiratory mechanics in ARF patients under the modes of PCV or VCV. Ninety-six ARF patients were treated with open endotracheal suctioning and their variations in respiratory mechanics and gas exchange after the suctions were compared. Under PCV mode, compared with the initial level of tidal volume (VT), ARF patients showed 30.0% and 27.8% decrease at 1 min and 10 min, respectively. Furthermore, the initial respiratory system compliance (Crs) decreased by 29.6% and 28.5% at 1 min and 10 min, respectively. Under VCV mode, compared with the initial level, 38.6% and 37.5% increase in peak airway pressure (PAP) were found at 1 min and 10 min, respectively. Under PCV mode, the initial PaO2increased by 6.4% and 10.2 % at 3 min and 10 min, respectively, while 18.9% and 30.6% increase of the initial PaO2were observed under VCV mode. Summarily, endotracheal suctioning may impair gas exchange and decrease lung compliance in ARF patients receiving mechanical ventilation under both PCV and VCV modes, but endotracheal suctioning effects on gas exchange were more severe and longer-lasting under PCV mode than VCV.


2021 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cléber Kazuo Ido ◽  
Newton Nunes

Background: Videolaparoscopic procedures have gained prominence due to their low invasiveness, causing less surgical trauma and better post-surgical recovery. However, the increase in intra-abdominal pressure due to the institution of pneumoperitoneum can alter the patient's homeostasis. Therefore, volume-controlled ventilation, associated with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), improves arterial oxygenation and prevents pulmonary collapse, but it can lead to important hemodynamic changes. The aim of this study was to evaluate, comparatively, the effects of positive end expiratory-pressure (PEEP) on hemodynamic variables of pigs submitted to volume-controlled ventilation, during pneumoperitoneum and maintained in head-down tilt and determine which PEEP value promotes greater stability on hemodynamic variables. Materials, Methods & Results: Twenty-four pigs were used, between 55 and 65-day-old, weighing between 15 and 25 kg, randomly divided into 3 distinct groups differentiated by positive end-expiratory pressure: PEEP 0 (volume-controlled ventilation and PEEP of 0 cmH2O), PEEP 5 (volume-controlled ventilation and PEEP of 5 cmH2O) and PEEP 10 (volume-controlled ventilation and PEEP of 10 cmH2O). Volume-controlled ventilation was adjusted to 8 mL/kg of tidal volume and a respiratory rate of 25 movements per min. Anesthesia was maintained with continuous infusion of propofol (0.2 mg/kg/min) and midazolam (1 mg/kg/h). Pneumoperitoneum was performed with carbon dioxide (CO2), keeping the intra-abdominal pressure at 15 mmHg and the animals were positioned on a 30° head-down tilt. The evaluations of hemodynamic variables started 30 min after induction of anesthesia (M0), followed by measurements at 15-min intervals (from M15 to M90), completing a total of 7 evaluations. The variables of interest were collected over 90 min and submitted to analysis of variance followed by Tukey´s post-hoc test, with P < 0.05. The PEEP 10 group had higher values of CVP and mCPP, while the PEEP 5 group, mPAP and PVR were higher. The PEEP 0 group, on the other hand, had higher means of CI. Regarding the moments, there were differences in HR, SAP, DAP, MAP, CO, IC and TPR.Discussion: According to the literature, important hemodynamic effects due to pneumoperitoneum are reported, which can be caused by the pressure used in abdominal insufflation, CO2 accumulation, duration of the surgical procedure, hydration status and patient positioning. Mechanical ventilation associated with PEEP can also cause an increase in intrathoracic pressure and, therefore, reduce cardiac output. Cardiovascular changes are proportional to the PEEP used. Central venous pressure (PVC) measure the patient's preload, and intrathoracic pressure can interfere with this parameter. The peak pressure values in the PEEP 10 group were higher than the other groups, demonstrating that the increase in intrathoracic pressure results in higher PVC values. Regarding PAPm and PCPm, these variables can be influenced according to the PEEP values and the patient's position. In relation to CI, the increase in PEEP may reflect on intrathoracic pressure, resulting in greater compression of the heart, with a consequent reduction in cardiac output and cardiac index. Therefore, it is concluded that the PEEP effects of 0 cmH2O and 5 cmH2O on hemodynamics are discrete, under the proposed conditions. Keywords: mechanical ventilation, PEEP, head-down tilt, VCV, swine. Descritores: ventilação mecânica, PEEP, posição de Trendelenburg, suínos. 


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Lugones ◽  
Matias Ramos ◽  
Maria Fernanda Biancolini ◽  
Roberto Eduardo Orofino Giambastiani

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV2 pandemic has created a sudden lack of ventilators. DuplicAR® is a novel device that allows simultaneous and independent ventilation of two subjects with a single ventilator. The aims of this study are: a) to determine the efficacy of DuplicAR® to independently regulate the peak and positive-end expiratory pressures in each subject, both under pressure-controlled ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation, and b) to determine the ventilation mode in which DuplicAR® presents the best performance and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two test lungs are connected to a single ventilator using DuplicAR®. Three experimental stages are established: 1) two identical subjects, 2) two subjects with the same weight but different lung compliance, and 3) two subjects with different weight and lung compliance. In each stage, the test lungs are ventilated in two ventilation modes. The positive-end expiratory pressure requirements are increased successively in one of the subjects. The goal is to achieve a tidal volume of 7 ml/kg for each subject in all different stages through manipulation of the ventilator and the DuplicAR® controllers. RESULTS: DuplicAR® allows adequate ventilation of two subjects with different weight and/or lung compliance and/or PEEP requirements. This is achieved by adjusting the total tidal volume for both subjects (in volume-controlled ventilation) or the highest peak pressure needed (in pressure-controlled ventilation) along with the basal positive-end expiratory pressure on the ventilator, and simultaneously manipulating the DuplicAR® controllers to decrease the tidal volume or the peak pressure in the subject that needs less and/or to increase the positive-end expiratory pressure in the subject that needs more. While ventilatory goals can be achieved in any of the ventilation modes, DuplicAR® performs better in pressure-controlled ventilation, as changes experienced in the variables of one subject do not modify the other one. CONCLUSIONS: DuplicAR® is an effective tool to manage the peak inspiratory pressure and the positive-end expiratory pressure independently in two subjects connected to a single ventilator. The driving pressure can be adjusted to meet the requirements of subjects with different weight and lung compliance. Pressure-controlled ventilation has advantages over volume-controlled ventilation and is therefore the recommended ventilation mode.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document