PURPOSE: Microvascular perfusion, pivotal for adequate tissue oxygenation is potentially linked to outcome in critical care therapy. Mechanical ventilation (MV) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) as standard concepts of respiratory management are known to have deleterious effects on regional organ perfusion especially in the splanchnic area. As these effects have been attributed to different physiologic mechanisms, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of positive pressure ventilation on extra-abdominal tissue perfusion in non-surgical intensive care patients. METHODS: Sublingual microcirculation was evaluated in 46 severely ill patients (group 1: n=26 requiring MV and PEEP; group 2: n=20 spontaneous breathing) admitted to the intensive care unit using sidestream darkfield intravitalmicroscopy. According to current guidelines, sublingual vessels were categorized by means of size and flow in semi-quantitative categories determining microvascular flow index (MFI). Total microvascular flow index (TMFI) was calculated for each patient as mean value of flow in all vessel categories. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between both groups in microvascular flow index in each vessel category and in total microvascular flow index. Patients requiring mechanical ventilation presented with more comorbidities and higher acuity of illness scores resulting in a higher ICU mortality, which however was not accompanied by microcirculatory differences at the time of measurement. CONCLUSION: Mechanical ventilation and PEEP have no general deleterious effects on microvascular perfusion of the sublingual mucosa. However, further clinical studies are required to investigate potential effects of higher levels of ventilation pressure or PEEP on microvascular perfusion.
PURPOSE: Microvascular perfusion, pivotal for adequate tissue oxygenation is potentially linked to outcome in critical care therapy. Mechanical ventilation (MV) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) as standard concepts of respiratory management are known to have deleterious effects on regional organ perfusion especially in the splanchnic area. As these effects have been attributed to different physiologic mechanisms, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of positive pressure ventilation on extra-abdominal tissue perfusion in non-surgical intensive care patients. METHODS: Sublingual microcirculation was evaluated in 46 severely ill patients (group 1: n=26 requiring MV and PEEP; group 2: n=20 spontaneous breathing) admitted to the intensive care unit using sidestream darkfield intravitalmicroscopy. According to current guidelines, sublingual vessels were categorized by means of size and flow in semi-quantitative categories determining microvascular flow index (MFI). Total microvascular flow index (TMFI) was calculated for each patient as mean value of flow in all vessel categories. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between both groups in microvascular flow index in each vessel category and in total microvascular flow index. Patients requiring mechanical ventilation presented with more comorbidities and higher acuity of illness scores resulting in a higher ICU mortality, which however was not accompanied by microcirculatory differences at the time of measurement. CONCLUSION: Mechanical ventilation and PEEP have no general deleterious effects on microvascular perfusion of the sublingual mucosa. However, further clinical studies are required to investigate potential effects of higher levels of ventilation pressure or PEEP on microvascular perfusion.