| Literature DB >> 18438579 |
Felipe S Rossi1, Renata Suman Mascaretti, Luciana B Haddad, Norberto A Freddi, Thais Mauad, Celso M Rebello.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies comparing high frequency oscillatory and conventional ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome have used low values of positive end-expiratory pressure and identified a need for better recruitment and pulmonary stability with high frequency.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18438579 PMCID: PMC2664200 DOI: 10.1590/s1807-59322008000200013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) ISSN: 1807-5932 Impact factor: 2.365
Characteristics of the animals in each study group. Values are mean ± SD
| Group | N | Weight (g) | Number of lavages | PaO2/FiO2 | LIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCV | 8 | 2625 ± 160 | 4.9 ± 1.8 | 65.5 ± 22.7 | 14.1 ± 2.5 |
| HFOV | 8 | 3015 ± 320 | 5.1 ± 0.8 | 84.3 ± 15.6 | 14.0 ± 2.0 |
PCV: Protective conventional ventilation; HFOV: High frequency oscillatory ventilation; LIP: Lower inflexion point of PV-curve.
p < 0.01
Figure 1Animals from PCV group (closed circles) and HFOV group (open circles) were ventilated with MAP around 18 cm H2O. Values are expressed in mean± SD. Both ventilation strategies resulted in similar mean airway pressures (MAP). “Initial” time are values before lung lavage; “zero” time corresponds to values immediately after the installation of the experimental model. The arrow indicates the moment of LIP determination and beginning of both ventilatory strategies
Figure 2Group mean±SD are shown for PCV group (closed circles) and HFOV group (open circles). “Initial” time are values before lung lavage; “zero” time corresponds to values immediately after the installation of the experimental model. The arrow indicates the moment of LIP determination and beginning of both ventilatory strategies. Panel A : PaO2/FiO2. The HFOV group presented better oxygenation at 150, 180 and 240 min; Panel B: Oxygenation index; Panel C : (a/A)O2and Panel D (A-a)O2. Similar increase in oxygenation with the beginning of ventilatory strategies was seen in both groups, with small but significant difference favoring the HFOV group at 240 min (Panel B) and 30 min (Panel C and Panel D)
Figure 3Group mean±SD are shown for PCV group (close circles) and HFOV group (open circles). “Initial” time are values before lung lavage; “zero” time corresponds to values immediately after the installation of the experimental model. The arrow indicates the moment of LIP determination and beginning of both ventilatory strategies. Panel A : PaCO2. Due to the protective ventilatory approach adopted, the PaCO2 values were higher among animals from PCV group; Panel B: pH. Significant decrease was seen among animals from PCV group
Characterization of the hemodynamic repercussion (mean arterial systemic pressure, and heart rate), lung weight (normalized to body weight) and total protein present in alveolar lavage (normalized to body weight) in both study groups. Values given as mean ± SD
| Group | N | MASP | Heart rate | Lung weight (g/kg) | Protein (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCV | 8 | 79.2±4.0 | 199±4 | 5.9 ± 2.0 | 38.5 ± 18.6 |
| HFOV | 8 | 98.1±3.9 | 193±4 | 6.4 ± 2.2 | 47.4 ±28.1 |
MASP: mean arterial systemic pressure; PCV: Protective conventional ventilation; HFOV: High frequency oscillatory ventilation.
Alveolar architecture changes according to the type of ventilatory strategy. Abnormal alveoli were collapsed or hyperinflated. Values expressed as percentages
| Group | Abnormal alveoli | Normal alveoli | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCV | 43.2% | 56.8% | 100% |
| HFOV | 51.5% | 48.5% | 100% |
PCV: Protective conventional ventilation; HFOV: High frequency oscillatory ventilation. p<0.01