PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to analyze the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), with and without a lung recruitment maneuver, on dead space. METHODS: 16 anesthetized patients were sequentially studied in three steps: 1) without PEEP (ZEEP), 2) with 5 cm H(2)O of PEEP and 3) with 5 cm H(2)O of PEEP after an alveolar recruitment strategy (ARS). Ventilation was maintained constant. The single breath test of CO(2) (SBT-CO(2)), arterial oxygenation, end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and respiratory compliance were recorded every 30 min. RESULTS: Physiological dead space to tidal volume decreased after ARS (0.45 +/- 0.01) compared with ZEEP (0.50 +/- 0.07, P < 0.05) and PEEP (0.51 +/- 0.06, P < 0.05). The elimination of CO(2) per breath increased during PEEP (25 +/- 3.3 mL.min(-1)) and ARS (27 +/- 3.2 mL.min(-1)) compared to ZEEP (23 +/- 2.6 mL.min(-1), P < 0.05), although ARS showed larger values than PEEP (P < 0.05). Pa-etCO(2) difference was lower after recruitment (0.9 +/- 0.5 kPa, P < 0.05) compared to ZEEP (1.1 +/- 0.5 kPa) and PEEP (1.2 +/- 0.5 kPa). Slope II increased after ARS (63 +/- 11%/L, P < 0.05) compared with ZEEP (46 +/- 7.7%/L) and PEEP (56 +/- 10%/L). Slope III decreased significantly after recruitment (0.13 +/- 0.07 1/L) compared with ZEEP (0.21 +/- 0.11 1/L) and PEEP (0.18 +/- 0.10 1/L). The angle between slope II and III decreased only after ARS. After lung recruitment, PaO(2), EELV, and compliance increased significantly compared with ZEEP and PEEP. CONCLUSION: Lung recruitment improved the efficiency of ventilation in anesthetized patients.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to analyze the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), with and without a lung recruitment maneuver, on dead space. METHODS: 16 anesthetized patients were sequentially studied in three steps: 1) without PEEP (ZEEP), 2) with 5 cm H(2)O of PEEP and 3) with 5 cm H(2)O of PEEP after an alveolar recruitment strategy (ARS). Ventilation was maintained constant. The single breath test of CO(2) (SBT-CO(2)), arterial oxygenation, end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and respiratory compliance were recorded every 30 min. RESULTS: Physiological dead space to tidal volume decreased after ARS (0.45 +/- 0.01) compared with ZEEP (0.50 +/- 0.07, P < 0.05) and PEEP (0.51 +/- 0.06, P < 0.05). The elimination of CO(2) per breath increased during PEEP (25 +/- 3.3 mL.min(-1)) and ARS (27 +/- 3.2 mL.min(-1)) compared to ZEEP (23 +/- 2.6 mL.min(-1), P < 0.05), although ARS showed larger values than PEEP (P < 0.05). Pa-etCO(2) difference was lower after recruitment (0.9 +/- 0.5 kPa, P < 0.05) compared to ZEEP (1.1 +/- 0.5 kPa) and PEEP (1.2 +/- 0.5 kPa). Slope II increased after ARS (63 +/- 11%/L, P < 0.05) compared with ZEEP (46 +/- 7.7%/L) and PEEP (56 +/- 10%/L). Slope III decreased significantly after recruitment (0.13 +/- 0.07 1/L) compared with ZEEP (0.21 +/- 0.11 1/L) and PEEP (0.18 +/- 0.10 1/L). The angle between slope II and III decreased only after ARS. After lung recruitment, PaO(2), EELV, and compliance increased significantly compared with ZEEP and PEEP. CONCLUSION: Lung recruitment improved the efficiency of ventilation in anesthetized patients.
Authors: Gerardo Tusman; Adriana Scandurra; Stephan H Böhm; Fernando Suarez-Sipmann; Fernando Clara Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2009-06-11 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Martina Mosing; Annette P N Kutter; Samuel Iff; Joanna Raszplewicz; Jacqueline Mauch; Stephan H Bohm; Gerardo Tusman Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2014-06-08 Impact factor: 2.502