scholarly journals Comparison of Pressure-Controlled Ventilation with Volume Guarantee and Volume-Controlled Ventilation mode in Patients under Laparoscopic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Ventilation Mode ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Pressure Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled ◽  
Pressure Controlled

scholarly journals Comparison of Pressure-Controlled Ventilation with Volume Guarantee and Volume-Controlled Ventilation mode in Patients under Laparoscopic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoxiao Li ◽  
Xueli Lv ◽  
Zhenfei Jiang ◽  
Xinrui Nie ◽  
Su Liu
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Peak Pressure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dynamic Compliance ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Pressure Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Co2 Insufflation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled ◽  
Pressure Controlled

Abstract Background：In traditional Volume-Controlled Ventilation (VCV) mode, the creation of pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery may lead to Ventilator-Associated Lung Injury (VALI). Pressure-Controlled Ventilation with Volume Guarantee (PCV-VG) mode ensures providing adequate oxygen supply to patients while reducing the risk of lung injury. Methods：Eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were searched in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Sino Med, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wan-Fang MED without language restriction up to March 2019. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was airway peak pressure (Ppeak) at 30, 60 or 90 mins after complete CO2 insufflation. This meta-analysis was followed the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Results：Finally, 9 articles were included. The Ppeak in the PCV-VG group was lower than that in the VCV group, and the difference was statistically significant at 30mins [Mean Difference (MD)= -3.55, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)= -5.13 to -1.98, I2=83%], 60mins [MD= -5.76, 95%CI= -8.15-3.36, I2=93%], 90 mins [MD= -4.59, 95%CI= -5.43-3.74, I2=30%] after complete CO2 insufflation. Meanwhile, PCV-VG mode could effectively reduce airway mean pressure (Pmean) and improve dynamic compliance (Cdyn) of patients after complete CO2 insufflation in laparoscopic surgery compared to VCV mode. However, no significant difference was found in PetCO2, HR, MAP, PH, PaO2, and PaCO2 between the two-ventilation modes. Conclusions: PCV-VG mode are superior to VCV mode in providing adequate oxygenation at lower airway peak pressure and greater dynamic compliance in patients under laparoscopic surgery.

scholarly journals Comparison of Volume-Guaranteed or -Targeted, Pressure-Controlled Ventilation with Volume-Controlled Ventilation during Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1276
Author(s):  
Volker Schick ◽  
Fabian Dusse ◽  
Ronny Eckardt ◽  
Steffen Kerkhoff ◽  
Simone Commotio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lung Ventilation ◽  
One Lung Ventilation ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Pressure Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled ◽  
Pressure Controlled

For perioperative mechanical ventilation under general anesthesia, modern respirators aim at combining the benefits of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in modes typically named “volume-guaranteed” or “volume-targeted” pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV-VG). This systematic review and meta-analysis tested the hypothesis that PCV-VG modes of ventilation could be beneficial in terms of improved airway pressures (Ppeak, Pplateau, Pmean), dynamic compliance (Cdyn), or arterial blood gases (PaO2, PaCO2) in adults undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Three major medical electronic databases were searched with predefined search strategies and publications were systematically evaluated according to the Cochrane Review Methods. Continuous variables were tested for mean differences using the inverse variance method and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Based on the assumption that intervention effects across studies were not identical, a random effects model was chosen. Assessment for heterogeneity was performed with the χ2 test and the I2 statistic. As primary endpoints, Ppeak, Pplateau, Pmean, Cdyn, PaO2, and PaCO2 were evaluated. Of the 725 publications identified, 17 finally met eligibility criteria, with a total of 929 patients recruited. Under supine two-lung ventilation, PCV-VG resulted in significantly reduced Ppeak (15 studies) and Pplateau (9 studies) as well as higher Cdyn (9 studies), compared with VCV [random effects models; Ppeak: CI −3.26 to −1.47; p < 0.001; I2 = 82%; Pplateau: −3.12 to −0.12; p = 0.03; I2 = 90%; Cdyn: CI 3.42 to 8.65; p < 0.001; I2 = 90%]. For one-lung ventilation (8 studies), PCV-VG allowed for significantly lower Ppeak and higher PaO2 compared with VCV. In Trendelenburg position (5 studies), this effect was significant for Ppeak only. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that volume-targeting, pressure-controlled ventilation modes may provide benefits with respect to the improved airway dynamics in two- and one-lung ventilation, and improved oxygenation in one-lung ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery.

scholarly journals Combined Ventilation of Two Subjects with a Single Mechanical Ventilator Using a New Medical Device: An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Ignacio Lugones ◽  
Matías Ramos ◽  
María Fernanda Biancolini ◽  
Roberto Orofino Giambastiani
Keyword(s):  
Tidal Volume ◽  
Ventilation Mode ◽  
Positive End Expiratory Pressure ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Pressure Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Ventilation Modes ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Volume Controlled ◽  
Pressure Controlled

Introduction. The SARS-CoV-2 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 weights and lung compliances. 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 weights and/or lung compliances 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 weights and lung compliances. 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