Literature DB >> 16971849

Hemodynamic effects of different lung-protective ventilation strategies in closed-chest pigs with normal lungs.

Carl D Roosens1, Ruggero Ama, H Alex Leather, Patrick Segers, Carlo Sorbara, Patrick F Wouters, Jan I Poelaert.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The benefits of lung-protective ventilation strategies used for acute respiratory distress syndrome in subjects with normal lungs are uncertain. The purpose of this study was to investigate the hemodynamic effects of conventional lung-protective ventilation (CLPV) and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) in a normal lung animal model.
DESIGN: Prospective laboratory investigation.
SETTING: Animal laboratory in a university medical center.
SUBJECTS: Seven landrace pigs (mean weight 41 kg).
INTERVENTIONS: Pigs were ventilated at random conventionally with positive end-expiratory pressure 2-3 cm H2O and tidal volume 10-12 mL/kg (control), with CLPV (positive end-expiratory pressure 10 cm H2O, tidal volume 6 mL/kg), or with HFOV. Hemodynamics were analyzed after insertion of biventricular conductance catheters and a pulmonary artery catheter.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The protective strategies led to higher mean airway pressures and severe hypercapnia with acidosis, which was only significant with CLPV. Compared with control, oxygenation was worse with CLPV and HFOV. With HFOV and CLPV, mean arterial pressure, cardiac output, and stroke volume decreased significantly; pulmonary arterial elastance increased. The slope of the end-diastolic pressure volume relationship for the left and right ventricle remained unchanged (preserved ventricular function), whereas the intercept increased with both protective strategies (augmented intrathoracic pressure); left and right end-diastolic volumes decreased significantly.
CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of a fluid resuscitation strategy, CLPV and HFOV caused decreased mean arterial pressure, cardiac output, and stroke volume and worsened oxygenation in this normal lung animal model. This resulted primarily from a biventricular decrease in preload.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16971849     DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000242758.37427.16

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  6 in total

Review 1.  Right ventricular failure: a comorbidity or a clinical emergency?

Authors:  Pamelika Das; Rajarajan A Thandavarayan; Kenichi Watanabe; Ravichandiran Velayutham; Somasundaram Arumugam
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2021-11-26       Impact factor: 4.654

2.  Effects of mechanical ventilation versus apnea on bi-ventricular pressure-volume loop recording.

Authors:  M Dam Lyhne; C Schmidt Mortensen; J Valentin Hansen; S Juel Dragsbaek; J E Nielsen-Kudsk; A Andersen
Journal:  Physiol Res       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 1.881

3.  High-frequency oscillatory ventilation and short-term outcome in neonates and infants undergoing cardiac surgery: a propensity score analysis.

Authors:  Mirela Bojan; Simone Gioanni; Philippe Mauriat; Philippe Pouard
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 4.  The Physiological Basis of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Current Evidence in Adults and Children: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Andrew G Miller; Herng Lee Tan; Brian J Smith; Alexandre T Rotta; Jan Hau Lee
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 4.755

5.  Is tissue Doppler echocardiography the Holy Grail for the intensivist?

Authors:  Jan Poelaert; Carl Roosens
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 9.097

6.  Effects of laparoscopy, laparotomy, and respiratory phase on liver volume in a live porcine model for liver resection.

Authors:  Hannes G Kenngott; Felix Nickel; Anas A Preukschas; Martin Wagner; Shivalik Bihani; Emre Özmen; Philipp A Wise; Nadine Bellemann; Christof M Sommer; Tobias Norajitra; Bastian Graser; Christian Stock; Marco Nolden; Araineb Mehrabi; Beat P Müller-Stich
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.584

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.