| Literature DB >> 20598125 |
Adrian Regli1, Lisen E Hockings, Gabrielle C Musk, Brigit Roberts, Bill Noffsinger, Bhajan Singh, Peter V van Heerden.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intra-abdominal hypertension is common in critically ill patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The optimal ventilation strategy remains unclear in these patients. We examined the effect of positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEP) on functional residual capacity (FRC) and oxygen delivery in a pig model of intra-abdominal hypertension.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20598125 PMCID: PMC2945091 DOI: 10.1186/cc9095
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care ISSN: 1364-8535 Impact factor: 9.097
Influence of positive end-expiratory pressure on respiratory and haemodynamic data at baseline intra-abdominal pressure
| PEEP, cmH2O | 5 | 8 | 5 vs 8 | 12 | 5 vs 12 | 15 | 5 vs 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRC, L | 1.4 (0.4) | 1.5 (0.5) | NS | 1.7 (0.5) | 0.002 | 1.7 (0.6) | < 0.001 |
| PaO2, mmHg | 237 (14) | 240 (19) | NS | 236 (16) | NS | 227 (25) | < 0.05 |
| pPaw, cmH2O | 21 (6) | 24 (5) | < 0.001 | 27 (5) | < 0.001 | 32 (5) | < 0.001 |
| mPaw, cmH2O | 10 (1) | 13 (2) | < 0.001 | 16 (2) | < 0.001 | 19 (1) | < 0.001 |
| C dyn, ml/cmH2O | 25 (8) | 25 (9) | NS | 24 (9) | NS | 21 (6) | < 0.001 |
| CO, L/min | 3.5 (1.0) | 3.2 (1.0) | NS | 2.7 (0.7) | 0.009 | 2.5 (0.7) | 0.002 |
| DO2, ml/min | 498 (156) | 459 (156) | NS | 381 (112) | 0.006 | 349 (100) | < 0.001 |
| SvO2, % | 62 (7) | 55 (11) | < 0.05 | 47 (13) | < 0.05 | 44 (17) | < 0.05 |
| VO2, ml/min | 191 (47) | 209 (70) | NS | 205 (81) | NS | 196 (53) | NS |
| MAP, mmHg | 71 (19) | 67 (15) | NS | 60 (13) | 0.025 | 56 (21) | 0.004 |
| APP, mmHg | 69 (19) | 64 (15) | NS | 56 (13) | 0.01 | 53 (21) | 0.002 |
| CVP, mmHg | 8 (4) | 8 (3) | NS | 9 (2) | NS | 10 (3) | NS |
| PAOP, mmHg | 6 (2) | 6 (2) | NS | 8 (2) | 0.004 | 9 (1) | < 0.001 |
| HR, beats/min | 79 (13) | 81 (18) | NS | 85 (20) | NS | 89 (24) | 0.026 |
| SVR, dyn * s/cm5 | 1,389 (408) | 1,404 (352) | NS | 1,445 (373) | NS | 1,337 (321) | NS |
| SV, ml | 50 (21) | 44 (13) | NS | 37 (12) | 0.002 | 33 (10) | < 0.001 |
APP, abdominal perfusion pressure; Cdyn, dynamic compliance; CO, cardiac output; CVP, central venous pressure; DO2, oxygen delivery; FRC, functional residual capacity; HR, heart rate; MAP, mean arterial pressure; mPaw, mean airway pressure; PaO2, arterial oxygen tension; PAOP, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure; pPaw, peak airway pressure; SV, stroke volume; SvO2, mixed venous oxygen saturation; SVR, systemic vascular resistance; VO2, oxygen consumption. Mean (SD) are given. ANOVA and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls were used for statistical testing. NS, not significant (P > 0.05).
Influence of positive end-expiratory pressure on respiratory and haemodynamic data at 18 mmHg intra-abdominal pressure
| PEEP, cmH | 5 | 8 | 5 vs 8 | 12 | 5 vs 12 | 15 | 5 vs 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRC, L | 0.9 (0.3) * | 1.0 (0.3) * | 0.034 | 1.0 (0.3) * | 0.049 | 1.1 (0.3) * | < 0.001 |
| PaO2, mmHg | 215 (32) | 218 (20) * | NS | 222 (23) * | NS | 216 (26) | NS |
| pPaw, cmH2O | 29 (5) * | 31 (5) * | < 0.001 | 34 (5) * | < 0.001 | 37 (5) * | < 0.001 |
| mPaw, cmH2O | 12 (3) * | 15 (3) * | < 0.001 | 18 (3) * | < 0.001 | 21 (4) * | < 0.001 |
| C dyn, ml/cmH2O | 15 (4) * | 15 (3) * | NS | 16 (4) * | NS | 16 (4) * | NS |
| CO, L/min | 3.5 (0.9) | 3.4 (0.7) | NS | 3.4 (0.9) | NS | 3.1 (0.8) * | NS |
| DO2, ml/min | 490 (130) | 472 (91) | NS | 472 (124) * | NS | 428 (116) * | NS |
| SvO2, % | 61 (9) | 61 (10) | NS | 58 (11) * | NS | 56 (14) * | NS |
| VO2, ml/min | 195 (64) | 192 (50) | NS | 202 (55) | NS | 186 (47) | NS |
| MAP, mmHg | 83 (12) | 79 (11) * | NS | 81 (16) * | NS | 72 (13) * | < 0.001 |
| APP, mmHg | 65 (13) | 62 (12) | NS | 63 (18) | NS | 56 (12) | 0.013 |
| CVP, mmHg | 10 (3) * | 11 (2) * | NS | 13 (4) * | < 0.001 | 15 (1) * | < 0.001 |
| PAOP, mmHg | 7 (2) | 9 (1) * | < 0.001 | 11 (2) * | < 0.001 | 12 (1) * | < 0.001 |
| HR, beats/min | 73 (16) | 72 (14) | NS | 74 (14) | NS | 76 (14) | NS |
| SVR, dyn * s/cm5 | 1,643 (364) | 1,600 (217) * | NS | 1,580 (248) | NS | 1,491 (275) | NS |
| SV, ml | 52 (23) | 49 (10) * | NS | 47 (14) * | NS | 42 (12) * | NS |
APP, abdominal perfusion pressure; Cdyn, dynamic compliance; CO, cardiac output; CVP, central venous pressure; DO2, oxygen delivery; FRC, functional residual capacity; HR, heart rate; MAP, mean arterial pressure; mPaw, mean airway pressure; PaO2, arterial oxygen tension; PAOP, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure; pPaw, peak airway pressure; SV, stroke volume; SvO2, mixed venous oxygen saturation; SVR, systemic vascular resistance; VO2, oxygen consumption. Mean (SD) are given. ANOVA and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls were used for statistical testing. *, significant (P < 0.05) difference compared with baseline IAP. NS, not significant.
Influence of positive end-expiratory pressure on respiratory and haemodynamic data at 26 mmHg intra-abdominal pressure
| PEEP, cmH | 5 | 8 | 5 vs 8 | 12 | 5 vs 12 | 15 | 5 vs 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRC, L | 1.0 (0.2) * | 1.0 (0.3) * | NS | 1.0 (0.3) * | NS | 1.0 (0.2) * | NS |
| PaO2, mmHg | 213 (24) | 215 (21) * | NS | 212 (21) * | NS | 212 (23) | NS |
| pPaw, cmH2O | 33 (4) * | 36 (4) * | < 0.001 | 38 (5) * | < 0.001 | 42 (4) * | < 0.001 |
| mPaw, cmH2O | 13 (4) * | 16 (4) * | < 0.001 | 19 (4) * | < 0.001 | 22 (4) * | < 0.001 |
| C dyn, ml/cmH2O | 13 (3) * | 13 (3) * | NS | 13 (4) * | NS | 12 (3) * | NS |
| CO, L/min | 3.2 (1.0) | 2.6 (0.6) * | < 0.001 | 2.7 (0.9) | < 0.001 | 2.5 (0.8) | < 0.001 |
| DO2, ml/min | 449 (161) | 367 (93) * | 0.035 | 377 (140) | 0.029 | 349 (124) | 0.005 |
| SvO2, % | 58 (9) | 54 (14) | 0.007 | 53 (15) * | 0.02 | 52 (13) | 0.045 |
| VO2, ml/min | 188 (38) | 179 (42) | NS | 183 (54) | NS | 165 (32) | NS |
| MAP, mmHg | 78 (13) | 74 (18) | NS | 74 (15) * | NS | 76 (17) * | NS |
| APP, mmHg | 52 (14) * | 48 (15) * | NS | 48 (15) | NS | 49 (17) | NS |
| CVP, mmHg | 11 (3) * | 12 (2) * | NS | 13 (2) * | 0.012 | 17 (3) * | < 0.001 |
| PAOP, mmHg | 9 (2) | 11 (4) * | 0.024 | 12 (2) * | 0.007 | 14 (3) * | < 0.001 |
| HR, beats/min | 72 (10) | 78 (14) | NS | 76 (13) | NS | 80 (16) | NS |
| SVR, dyn * s/cm5 | 1,771 (446) | 1813 (404) * | NS | 1,861 (490) * | NS | 1,891 (419) * | NS |
| SV, ml | 44 (12) | 37 (14) * | 0.024 | 39 (18) | 0.037 | 33 (12) | 0.002 |
APP, abdominal perfusion pressure; Cdyn, dynamic compliance; CO, cardiac output; CVP, central venous pressure; DO2, oxygen delivery; FRC, functional residual capacity; HR, heart rate; MAP, mean arterial pressure; mPaw, mean airway pressure; PaO2, arterial oxygen tension; PAOP, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure; pPaw, peak airway pressure; SV, stroke volume; SvO2, mixed venous oxygen saturation; SVR, systemic vascular resistance; VO2, oxygen consumption. Mean (SD) are given. ANOVA and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls were used for statistical testing. *, significant (P < 0.05) difference compared with baseline IAP. NS, not significant.
Figure 1Influence of intra-abdominal pressure and positive end-expiratory pressure on functional residual capacity. Functional residual capacity (FRC) in litres (L) in function of different levels of intra-abdominal pressures (IAP) (3 mmHg (baseline), 18 mmHg (grade II intra-abdominal hypertension), and 26 mmHg (grade IV intra-abdominal hypertension)) at different levels of positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEP). Mean and SE are shown. ANOVA and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls were used for statistical testing. *, P < 0.05 within an IAP setting vs. the corresponding value at 5 cmH2O PEEP. For clarification additional symbol is added where necessary. At each PEEP setting, all FRC values were significantly different compared to the corresponding value at baseline IAP (P < 0.05).
Figure 2Influence of intra-abdominal pressure and positive end-expiratory pressure on cardiac output. Cardiac output in L/minute in function of different levels of intra-abdominal pressures (IAP) (3 mmHg (baseline), 18 mmHg (grade II intra-abdominal hypertension), and 26 mmHg (grade IV intra-abdominal hypertension)) at different levels of positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEP). Mean and SE are shown. ANOVA and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls were used for statistical testing *, P < 0.05 within an IAP setting vs. the corresponding value at 5 cmH2O PEEP. #, P < 0.05 within a PEEP setting vs. the corresponding value at baseline IAP. For clarification additional symbol is added where necessary.
Figure 3Influence of intra-abdominal pressure and positive end-expiratory pressure on oxygen delivery. Oxygen delivery in ml/min in function of different levels of intra-abdominal pressures (IAP) (3 mmHg (baseline), 18 mmHg (grade II intra-abdominal hypertension), and 26 mmHg (grade IV intra-abdominal hypertension)) at different positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEP). Mean and SE are shown. ANOVA and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls were used for statistical testing *, P < 0.05 within an IAP setting vs. the corresponding value at 5 cmH2O PEEP. #, P < 0.05 within a PEEP setting vs. the corresponding value at baseline IAP. For clarification additional symbol is added where necessary.
Figure 4Influence of intra-abdominal pressure and positive end-expiratory pressure on mixed venous oxygen saturation. Mixed venous oxygen saturation in % in function of different levels of intra-abdominal pressures (IAP) (3 mmHg (baseline), 18 mmHg (grade II intra-abdominal hypertension), and 26 mmHg (grade IV intra-abdominal hypertension)) at different levels of positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEP). Mean and SE are shown. ANOVA and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls were used for statistical testing *, P < 0.05 within an IAP setting vs. the corresponding value at 5 cmH2O PEEP. #, P < 0.05 within a PEEP setting vs. the corresponding value at baseline IAP.