OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of two different recruitment maneuvers repeated multiple times on gas exchange lung injury, hemodynamic, and lung mechanics. DESIGN: Randomized prospective comparison. SETTINGS: Animal research laboratory. SUBJECT: Nineteen fasted Hampshire sheep. INTERVENTIONS: In 15 27-kg sheep with saline lavage lung injury, we compared the effects of two recruitment maneuvers: 40 cm H2O continuous positive airway pressure for 60 secs and 40 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure with 20 cm H2O pressure control, rate 10 breaths/min, inspiratory to expiratory ratio 1:1 for 2 mins. Each recruitment maneuver was repeated four times, every 30 mins after a 30-sec ventilator disconnection. An additional group received no recruitment maneuvers. Animals were assigned randomly to the three groups and ventilated with 20 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure, pressure control 15 cm H2O, rate 20 breaths/min, inspiratory to expiratory ratio 1:1, and Fio2 1.0 between recruitment maneuver periods. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Significant and marked increases in Pao2 were observed in the pressure control recruitment maneuver group but only after the second recruitment maneuver. In both the control group and continuous positive airway pressure groups, Pao2 did not significantly increase after any recruitment maneuver compared with baseline injury. There was a significant decrease in cardiac output immediately after some continuous positive airway pressure recruitment maneuvers and a significant increase in mean pulmonary artery pressure in both continuous positive airway pressure and pressure control groups immediately after recruitment maneuvers, but these changes resolved within 10 mins. There were no marked histologic differences between groups and no volutrauma. CONCLUSION: In this model, maximal lung recruitment was obtained with 40 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure and 20 cm H2O pressure control applied repetitively every 30 mins for 2 mins without physiologic or histologic harm. Multiple recruitment maneuvers in some animals were required for maximum effect.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of two different recruitment maneuvers repeated multiple times on gas exchange lung injury, hemodynamic, and lung mechanics. DESIGN: Randomized prospective comparison. SETTINGS: Animal research laboratory. SUBJECT: Nineteen fasted Hampshire sheep. INTERVENTIONS: In 15 27-kg sheep with saline lavage lung injury, we compared the effects of two recruitment maneuvers: 40 cm H2O continuous positive airway pressure for 60 secs and 40 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure with 20 cm H2O pressure control, rate 10 breaths/min, inspiratory to expiratory ratio 1:1 for 2 mins. Each recruitment maneuver was repeated four times, every 30 mins after a 30-sec ventilator disconnection. An additional group received no recruitment maneuvers. Animals were assigned randomly to the three groups and ventilated with 20 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure, pressure control 15 cm H2O, rate 20 breaths/min, inspiratory to expiratory ratio 1:1, and Fio2 1.0 between recruitment maneuver periods. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Significant and marked increases in Pao2 were observed in the pressure control recruitment maneuver group but only after the second recruitment maneuver. In both the control group and continuous positive airway pressure groups, Pao2 did not significantly increase after any recruitment maneuver compared with baseline injury. There was a significant decrease in cardiac output immediately after some continuous positive airway pressure recruitment maneuvers and a significant increase in mean pulmonary artery pressure in both continuous positive airway pressure and pressure control groups immediately after recruitment maneuvers, but these changes resolved within 10 mins. There were no marked histologic differences between groups and no volutrauma. CONCLUSION: In this model, maximal lung recruitment was obtained with 40 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure and 20 cm H2O pressure control applied repetitively every 30 mins for 2 mins without physiologic or histologic harm. Multiple recruitment maneuvers in some animals were required for maximum effect.
Authors: Helena Odenstedt; Anders Aneman; Sigurbergur Kárason; Ola Stenqvist; Stefan Lundin Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-12-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Paula W Steimback; Gisele P Oliveira; Andréia F Rzezinski; Pedro L Silva; Cristiane S N B Garcia; Graziela Rangel; Marcelo M Morales; José R Lapa E Silva; Vera L Capelozzi; Paolo Pelosi; Patricia R M Rocco Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jonas Nielsen; Morten Østergaard; Jesper Kjaergaard; Jens Tingleff; Preben G Berthelsen; Eigil Nygård; Anders Larsson Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-08-12 Impact factor: 17.440
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: Armand Mekontso Dessap; Guillaume Voiriot; Tong Zhou; Elisabeth Marcos; Steven M Dudek; Jeff R Jacobson; Roberto Machado; Serge Adnot; Laurent Brochard; Bernard Maitre; Joe G N Garcia Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: Monique Engel; Relana M E Nowacki; Lucy K Reiss; Stefan Uhlig; Coen H M P Willems; Nico Kloosterboer; J Freek van Iwaarden; Alide C P Sewing; Matthias Seehase; Verena A C Lambermont; Jennifer J P Collins; Luc J I Zimmermann; Gijs D Vos; Boris W Kramer Journal: Lung Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: Jonas Nielsen; Manja Nilsson; Filip Fredén; Jan Hultman; Ulrica Alström; Jesper Kjaergaard; Göran Hedenstierna; Anders Larsson Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-03-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Gustavo F J de Matos; Fabiana Stanzani; Rogerio H Passos; Mauricio F Fontana; Renata Albaladejo; Raquel E Caserta; Durval C B Santos; João Batista Borges; Marcelo B P Amato; Carmen S V Barbas Journal: Crit Care Date: 2012-01-08 Impact factor: 9.097