| Literature DB >> 16792808 |
Ralf M Muellenbach1, Markus Kredel, Bernd Zollhoefer, Christian Wunder, Norbert Roewer, Joerg Brederlau.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the effect of a sustained inflation followed by an incremental mean airway pressure trial during conventional and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation on oxygenation and hemodynamics in a large porcine model of early acute respiratory distress syndrome.Entities:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16792808 PMCID: PMC1526714 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2253-6-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Anesthesiol ISSN: 1471-2253 Impact factor: 2.217
Figure 1Study protocol and time course. FiO2 = fraction of inspired oxygen; PEEP = positive endexspiratory pressure; Vt = tidal volume; RR = respiratory rate; I:E = inspiratory:exspiratory-ratio; PCV = pressure controlled ventilation; HFOV = High-frequency oscillatory ventilation; mPaw = mean pulmonary airway pressure; PaO2 = arterial oxygen pressure
Hemodynamic variables during recruitment manoeuvre.
| PCV | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
| HFOV | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
| PCV | 71 ± 18 | 85 ± 22 | 85 ± 18 | 76 ± 20 | 73 ± 24 | 73 ± 23 | |
| HFOV | 66 ± 9 | 79 ± 6 | 67 ± 5*+ | 63 ± 3* | 62 ± 4* | 64 ± 5* | |
| PCV | 75 ± 13*** | 93 ± 11 | 84 ± 17 | 86 ± 11 | 86 ± 10 | 86 ± 10 | |
| HFOV | 71 ± 8*** | 94 ± 9 | 87 ± 7 | 87 ± 5 | 85 ± 6 | 83 ± 7** | |
| PCV | 4.9 ± 2.4*** | 7.1 ± 2.3 | 7.6 ± 1.8 | 8.1 ± 1.8 | 8.6 ± 2.1** | 9.4 ± 2.5*** | |
| HFOV | 5.2 ± 2.2** | 6.4 ± 2.5 | 9.7 ± 2.0***+ | 10.4 ± 2.1***+ | 10.7± 1.9***+ | 11.9 ± 2.0***+ | |
| PCV | 19 ± 5*** | 37 ± 6 | 34 ± 5*** | 31 ± 4*** | 28 ± 4*** | 30 ± 3*** | |
| HFOV | 17 ± 2*** | 34 ± 5 | 30 ± 6**+ | 27 ± 4*** | 29 ± 4*** | 31 ± 4** | |
| PCV | 7.3 ± 2.9 | 8.7 ± 2.1 | 10.2 ± 2.0 | 10.0 ± 2.3 | 12.0 ± 3.0*** | 12.6 ± 3.0*** | |
| HFOV | 7.4 ± 1.6** | 9.7 ± 3.7 | 12.2 ± 2.8** | 13.0 ± 2.9***+ | 12.8 ± 1.8*** | 14.0 ± 1.9*** | |
| PCV | 0.09 ± 0.05*** | 0.54 ± 0.10 | 0.31 ± 0.17 ** | ||||
| HFOV | 0.06 ± 0.01*** | 0.52 ± 0.07 | 0.10 ± 0.04***+ | ||||
| PCV | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 4 | |
| HFOV | 9 | 8 | 7 | 3 | |||
| PCV | 71 ± 18 | 74 ± 18 | 80 ± 18 | 83 ± 19 | 92 ± 18 | 100 ± 16 | |
| HFOV | 67 ± 8 | 77 ± 10 | 82 ± 13 | 97 ± 13 | |||
| PCV | 83 ± 7* | 79 ± 6 | 76 ± 10 | 75 ± 8 | 73 ± 9 | 77 ± 4 | |
| HFOV | 78 ± 6*** | 77 ± 8 | 80 ± 6 | 80 ± 5 | |||
| PCV | 10.4 ± 2.4*** | 11.1 ± 2.0 | 11.7 ± 2.1 | 12.7 ± 3.0 | 13.4 ± 2.3 | 14.5 ± 2.5 | |
| HFOV | 12.8 ± 2.0***+ | 13.1 ± 1.8 | 13.4 ± 2.6 | 14.7 ± 2.9 | |||
| PCV | 32 ± 3*** | 33 ± 3 | 35 ± 4 | 37 ± 3 | 39 ± 5 | 41 ± 2 | |
| HFOV | 32 ± 4* | 35 ± 5 | 36 ± 4 | 37 ± 4 | |||
| PCV | 13.4 ± 2.1*** | 13.6 ± 2.8 | 15.4 ± 3.1 | 17.3 ± 3.5 | 19.0 ± 2.7 | 19.3 ± 1.9 | |
| HFOV | 15.9 ± 2.4***+ | 16.4 ± 2.5 | 16.3 ± 3.3 | 18.0 ± 2.6 | |||
| PCV | 0.06 ± 0.02 | ||||||
| HFOV | 0.04 ± 0.02 | ||||||
Data are mean ± standard deviation; Two-way-ANOVA with repeated measurements (Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test): * p < 0.05 vs. TAli; ** p < 0.01 vs. TAli; *** p < 0.001 vs. TAli; HFOV compared with PCV: + p < 0.01. PCV = pressure controlled ventilation; HFOV = High-frequency oscillatory ventilation; HR = heart rate; MAP = mean arterial pressure; CVP = central venous pressure; MPAP = mean pulmonary artery pressure; PCWP = pulmonary capillary wedge pressure; Qs/Qt = pulmonary shunt fraction.
Variables of Gas exchange during recruitment manoeuvre.
| PCV | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
| HFOV | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
| PCV | 7.45 ± 0.06*** | 7.32 ± 0.06 | 7.31 ± 0.06 | 7.33 ± 0.05 | 7.34 ± 0.06 | 7.34 ± 0.06 | |
| HFOV | 7.48 ± 0.09*** | 7.35 ± 0.04 | 7.43 ± 0.05*+ | 7.45± 0.06**+ | 7.45 ± 0.05**+ | 7.44 ± 0.05*+ | |
| PCV | 794 ± 312 | 781 ± 216 | 740 ± 145 | 722 ± 133 | 677 ± 114 | 644 ± 110 | |
| HFOV | 662 ± 157 | 724 ± 152 | 710 ± 105 | 677 ± 99 | 624 ± 117 | 547 ± 59* | |
| PCV | 184 ± 42* | 221 ± 72 | 194 ± 44 | ||||
| HFOV | 165 ± 37* | 204 ± 52 | 188 ± 24 | ||||
| PCV | 83 ± 6*** | 60 ± 14 | 69 ± 10* | ||||
| HFOV | 84 ± 3*** | 62 ± 8 | 72 ± 5** | ||||
| PCV | 10 ± 1*** | 15 ± 2 | 18 ± 2*** | 20 ± 2*** | 23 ± 2*** | 26 ± 2*** | |
| HFOV | 9 ± 0*** | 15 ± 1 | 18 ± 1*** | 21 ± 1*** | 24 ± 1*** | 27 ± 1*** | |
| PCV | 15 ± 1*** | 25 ± 3 | 27 ± 3*** | 28 ± 3*** | 30 ± 3*** | 33 ± 3*** | |
| HFOV | 14 ± 1*** | 25 ± 2 | 20 ± 1***+ | 23 ± 1***+ | 26 ± 1***+ | 29 ± 1***+ | |
| PCV | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 4 | |
| HFOV | 9 | 8 | 7 | 3 | |||
| PCV | 7.35 ± 0.06 | 7.35 ± 0.05 | 7.35 ± 0.05 | 7.33 ± 0.05 | 7.31 ± 0,06 | 7.30 ± 0,04 | |
| HFOV | 7.43 ± 0.04*+ | 7.41± 0.05 | 7.39 ± 0.04 | 7.38 ± 0.04 | |||
| PCV | 591 ± 71* | 571 ± 68 | 551 ± 65 | 506 ± 73 | 494 ± 89 | 475 ± 74 | |
| HFOV | 503 ± 71** | 461 ± 72 | 478 ± 60 | 489 ± 92 | |||
| PCV | 183 ± 27 | ||||||
| HFOV | 194 ± 18 | ||||||
| PCV | 70 ± 4 | ||||||
| HFOV | 66 ± 9 | ||||||
| PCV | 28 ± 1*** | 31 ± 2 | 34 ± 1 | 36 ± 2 | 37 ± 4 | 36 ± 2 | |
| HFOV | 29 ± 2*** | 32 ± 3 | 33 ± 4 | 33 ± 1 | |||
| PCV | 35 ± 2*** | 38 ± 2 | 42 ± 3 | 43 ± 4 | 45 ± 6 | 45 ± 2 | |
| HFOV | 31 ± 2***+ | 34 ± 3 | 35 ± 4 | 35 ± 1 | |||
Data are mean ± standard deviation; Two-way-ANOVA with repeated measurements (Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test): * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 vs. TAli; HFOV compared with PCV: + p < 0.001. PCV = pressure controlled ventilation; HFOV = High-frequency oscillatory ventilation; DO2 = oxygen delivery; VO2 = oxygen consumption; SvO2 = mixed venous oxygen saturation; mPaw = mean pulmonary airway pressure; PIP = peak pulmonary airway pressure.
Figure 2PaO. PaO2/FiO2 – Index (mean ± SD) during recruitment manoeuvre. PCV = pressure controlled ventilation; HFOV = High-frequency oscillatory ventilation. * p < 0.001 vs. TAli; + p < 0.001 HFOV vs. PCV. (n = 9 until 75 min).
Figure 3Oxygenation Index (OI). Oxygenation Index (mean ± SD) during recruitment manoeuvre. PCV = pressure controlled ventilation; HFOV = High-frequency oscillatory ventilation. * p < 0.001 vs. TAli; + p < 0.001 HFOV vs. PCV. (n = 9 until 75 min).
Figure 4Partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide(PaCO. PaCO2 (mean ± SD) during recruitment manoeuvre. PCV = pressure controlled ventilation; HFOV = High-frequency oscillatory ventilation. * p < 0.01 vs. TAli; + p < 0.01 HFOV vs. PCV. (n = 9 until 75 min).
Figure 5Cardiac output (CO). CO (mean ± SD) during recruitment manoeuvre. PCV = pressure controlled ventilation; HFOV = High-frequency oscillatory ventilation. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 vs. TAli; + p < 0.01 HFOV vs. PCV. (n = 9 until 75 min).