OBJECTIVE: We wished to investigate whether volume recruitment maneuvers (VRMs) could improve alveolar recruitment and oxygenation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients, ventilated at relatively low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). SETTING: General intensive care unit (ICU) located in a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 15 PEEP responder ARDS patients undergoing continuous positive pressure ventilation (CPPV) with sedation and muscle paralysis. INTERVENTIONS: We identified a low (9.4 +/- 3 cmH2O) and a high (16.0 +/- 2 cmH2O) level of PEEP associated with target oxygenation values. Using a custom modified mechanical ventilator, we applied in random order three steps lasting 30 min: (1) CPPV at the low PEEP level (CPPV(LO)); (2) CPPV at the high PEEP level (CPPV(HI)); (3) CPPV at low PEEP with the superimposition of periodic VRMs (CPPV(VRM)). VRMs were performed twice a minute by increasing PEEP to the high level for two breaths. Each brace of two breaths was spaced 30 seconds from the preceding one. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: We measured gas exchange, hemodynamics, respiratory mechanics, and the end expiratory lung volume (EELV). Compared to CPPV(LO), CPPV(VRM) resulted in higher PaO2 (117.9 +/- 40.6 vs 79.4 +/- 13.6 mmHg, P < 0.01) and EELV (1.50 +/- 0.62 vs 1.26 +/- 0.50 l, P < 0.05), and in lower venous admixture (Q(VA)/Q(T)) (0.42 +/- 0.07 vs 0.48 +/- 0.07, P < 0.01). During CPPV(HI), we observed significantly higher PaO2 (139.3 +/- 32.5 mmHg) and lower Q(VA)/Q(T) (0.37 +/- 0.08) compared to CPPV(LO) (P < 0.01) and to CPPV(VRM) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: VRMs can improve oxygenation and alveolar recruitment during CPPV at relatively low PEEP, but are relatively less effective than a continuous high PEEP level.
OBJECTIVE: We wished to investigate whether volume recruitment maneuvers (VRMs) could improve alveolar recruitment and oxygenation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients, ventilated at relatively low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). SETTING: General intensive care unit (ICU) located in a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 15 PEEP responder ARDSpatients undergoing continuous positive pressure ventilation (CPPV) with sedation and muscle paralysis. INTERVENTIONS: We identified a low (9.4 +/- 3 cmH2O) and a high (16.0 +/- 2 cmH2O) level of PEEP associated with target oxygenation values. Using a custom modified mechanical ventilator, we applied in random order three steps lasting 30 min: (1) CPPV at the low PEEP level (CPPV(LO)); (2) CPPV at the high PEEP level (CPPV(HI)); (3) CPPV at low PEEP with the superimposition of periodic VRMs (CPPV(VRM)). VRMs were performed twice a minute by increasing PEEP to the high level for two breaths. Each brace of two breaths was spaced 30 seconds from the preceding one. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: We measured gas exchange, hemodynamics, respiratory mechanics, and the end expiratory lung volume (EELV). Compared to CPPV(LO), CPPV(VRM) resulted in higher PaO2 (117.9 +/- 40.6 vs 79.4 +/- 13.6 mmHg, P < 0.01) and EELV (1.50 +/- 0.62 vs 1.26 +/- 0.50 l, P < 0.05), and in lower venous admixture (Q(VA)/Q(T)) (0.42 +/- 0.07 vs 0.48 +/- 0.07, P < 0.01). During CPPV(HI), we observed significantly higher PaO2 (139.3 +/- 32.5 mmHg) and lower Q(VA)/Q(T) (0.37 +/- 0.08) compared to CPPV(LO) (P < 0.01) and to CPPV(VRM) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: VRMs can improve oxygenation and alveolar recruitment during CPPV at relatively low PEEP, but are relatively less effective than a continuous high PEEP level.
Authors: Juan P Boriosi; Anil Sapru; James H Hanson; Jeanette Asselin; Ginny Gildengorin; Vivienne Newman; Katie Sabato; Heidi R Flori Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Carol Hodgson; Ewan C Goligher; Meredith E Young; Jennifer L Keating; Anne E Holland; Lorena Romero; Scott J Bradley; David Tuxen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-11-17
Authors: Helena Odenstedt; Sophie Lindgren; Cecilia Olegård; Karin Erlandsson; Sven Lethvall; Anders Aneman; Ola Stenqvist; Stefan Lundin Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-09-22 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Guillermo Bugedo; Alejandro Bruhn; Glenn Hernández; Gonzalo Rojas; Cristián Varela; Juan Carlos Tapia; Luis Castillo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-01-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Noah H Hillman; Matthew W Kemp; Peter B Noble; Suhas G Kallapur; Alan H Jobe Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 5.464