PURPOSE: To compare four methods of volume recruitment upon initiation of high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). METHODS: Anesthetized intubated neonatal piglets (n = 10) underwent repeated saline lavage, followed by conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). After transition to HFOV at a mean airway pressure 8 cmH2O above CMV (P(basal)), four methods of lung volume recruitment were tested in each animal in random order: Escalating--step-wise pressure increments over 6 min to a peak mean airway pressure 12 cmH2O above P(basal); Sustained dynamic inflation (DI)--a 20 s inflation to the same peak pressure; DI repeated six times for 1 s; Standard--mean airway pressure set directly at P(basal). After each recruitment method, HFOV continued at P(basal) for 15 min. Thoracic gas volume and distribution of aeration were determined by single slice computed tomography, and oxygenation by arterial blood gas sampling. RESULTS: Escalating recruitment resulted in the greatest thoracic gas volume 15 min post recruitment [77 +/- 3.3% of total lung capacity vs. 70 +/- 4.2% (Sustained DI), 65 +/- 3.5% (Repeated DI),63 +/- 5.1% (Standard); mean +/- SEM; P = 0.042, ANOVA]. All methods resulted in a reduction in non-aerated lung, with the greatest redistribution to normally aerated lung being with Escalating recruitment. Oxygenation 15 min post recruitment was better with the Escalating method than with Repeated DI or Standard recruitment (pO2 307 +/- 41 vs. 159 +/- 36 vs. 134 +/- 39 mmHg, respectively; P = 0.016, ANOVA). CONCLUSIONS: Escalating recruitment produced the greatest increase in lung volume and resolution of atelectasis, and is recommended for lung volume recruitment upon initiation of HFOV.
PURPOSE: To compare four methods of volume recruitment upon initiation of high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). METHODS: Anesthetized intubated neonatal piglets (n = 10) underwent repeated saline lavage, followed by conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). After transition to HFOV at a mean airway pressure 8 cmH2O above CMV (P(basal)), four methods of lung volume recruitment were tested in each animal in random order: Escalating--step-wise pressure increments over 6 min to a peak mean airway pressure 12 cmH2O above P(basal); Sustained dynamic inflation (DI)--a 20 s inflation to the same peak pressure; DI repeated six times for 1 s; Standard--mean airway pressure set directly at P(basal). After each recruitment method, HFOV continued at P(basal) for 15 min. Thoracic gas volume and distribution of aeration were determined by single slice computed tomography, and oxygenation by arterial blood gas sampling. RESULTS: Escalating recruitment resulted in the greatest thoracic gas volume 15 min post recruitment [77 +/- 3.3% of total lung capacity vs. 70 +/- 4.2% (Sustained DI), 65 +/- 3.5% (Repeated DI),63 +/- 5.1% (Standard); mean +/- SEM; P = 0.042, ANOVA]. All methods resulted in a reduction in non-aerated lung, with the greatest redistribution to normally aerated lung being with Escalating recruitment. Oxygenation 15 min post recruitment was better with the Escalating method than with Repeated DI or Standard recruitment (pO2 307 +/- 41 vs. 159 +/- 36 vs. 134 +/- 39 mmHg, respectively; P = 0.016, ANOVA). CONCLUSIONS: Escalating recruitment produced the greatest increase in lung volume and resolution of atelectasis, and is recommended for lung volume recruitment upon initiation of HFOV.
Authors: Guillermo M Albaiceta; Luis H Luyando; Diego Parra; Rafael Menendez; Juan Calvo; Paula Rodríguez Pedreira; Francisco Taboada Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-08-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Pier Paolo Terragni; Giulio Rosboch; Andrea Tealdi; Eleonora Corno; Eleonora Menaldo; Ottavio Davini; Giovanni Gandini; Peter Herrmann; Luciana Mascia; Michel Quintel; Arthur S Slutsky; Luciano Gattinoni; V Marco Ranieri Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2006-10-12 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: D R Gerstmann; S D Minton; R A Stoddard; K S Meredith; F Monaco; J M Bertrand; O Battisti; J P Langhendries; A Francois; R H Clark Journal: Pediatrics Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Karen E McCall; Andreas D Waldmann; Prue Pereira-Fantini; Regina Oakley; Martijn Miedema; Elizabeth J Perkins; Peter G Davis; Peter A Dargaville; Stephan H Böhm; Raffaele Dellacà; Magdy Sourial; Emanuela Zannin; Anushi E Rajapaksa; Andre Tan; Andy Adler; Inéz Frerichs; David G Tingay Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Ruth K Armstrong; Hazel R Carlisle; Peter G Davis; Andreas Schibler; David G Tingay Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: David G Tingay; Anushi Rajapaksa; Karen McCall; Cornelis E E Zonneveld; Don Black; Elizabeth Perkins; Magdy Sourial; Anna Lavizzari; Peter G Davis Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jordan Thurgood; Stuart Hooper; Melissa Siew; Megan Wallace; Stephen Dubsky; Marcus Kitchen; R Aidan Jamison; Richard Carnibella; Andreas Fouras Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Graeme R Polglase; David G Tingay; Risha Bhatia; Clare A Berry; Robert J Kopotic; Clinton P Kopotic; Yong Song; Edgardo Szyld; Alan H Jobe; Jane J Pillow Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 2.125