Literature DB >> 22743778

Comparative effects of proportional assist and variable pressure support ventilation on lung function and damage in experimental lung injury.

Peter M Spieth1, Andreas Güldner, Alessandro Beda, Nadja Carvalho, Thomas Nowack, Anke Krause, Ines Rentzsch, Sabina Suchantke, Serge C Thal, Kristin Engelhard, Michael Kasper, Thea Koch, Paolo Pelosi, Marcelo Gama de Abreu.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of proportional assist ventilation, variable pressure support, and conventional pressure support ventilation on lung function and damage in experimental acute lung injury.
DESIGN: : Randomized experimental study.
SETTING: University hospital research facility.
SUBJECTS: : Twenty-four juvenile pigs.
INTERVENTIONS: Pigs were anesthetized, intubated, and mechanically ventilated. Acute lung injury was induced by saline lung lavage. After resuming of spontaneous breathing, animals were randomly assigned to 6 hrs of assisted ventilation with pressure support ventilation, proportional assist ventilation, or variable pressure support (n = 8 per group). Mean tidal volume was kept at ≈6 mL/kg in all modes.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung functional parameters, distribution of ventilation by electrical impedance tomography, and breathing patterns were analyzed. Histological lung damage and pulmonary inflammatory response were determined postmortem. Variable -pressure support and proportional assist ventilation improved oxygenation and venous admixture compared with pressure support ventilation. Proportional assist ventilation led to higher esophageal pressure time product than variable pressure support and pressure support ventilation, and redistributed ventilation from central to dorsal lung regions compared to pressure support ventilation. Variable pressure support and proportional assist ventilation yielded higher tidal volume variability than pressure support ventilation. Such pattern was deterministic (self-organized) during proportional assist ventilation and stochastic (random) during variable pressure support. Subject-ventilator synchrony as well as pulmonary inflammatory response and damage did not differ among groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In a lung lavage model of acute lung injury, both variable pressure support and proportional assist ventilation increased the variability of tidal volume and improved oxygenation and venous admixture, without influencing subject-ventilator synchrony or affecting lung injury compared with pressure support ventilation. However, variable pressure support yielded less inspiratory effort than proportional assist ventilation at comparable mean tidal volumes of 6 mL/kg.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22743778     DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182592021

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


  15 in total

Review 1.  Approaches to ventilation in intensive care.

Authors:  Peter M Spieth; Thea Koch; Marcelo Gama de Abreu
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Variable lung protective mechanical ventilation decreases incidence of postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction during open abdominal surgery.

Authors:  Ruichun Wang; Junping Chen; Guorong Wu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-11-15

3.  Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist and proportional assist ventilation both improve patient-ventilator interaction.

Authors:  Matthieu Schmidt; Felix Kindler; Jérôme Cecchini; Tymothée Poitou; Elise Morawiec; Romain Persichini; Thomas Similowski; Alexandre Demoule
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 9.097

4.  Should we breathe quiet or noisy?

Authors:  Christian Putensen; Thomas Muders
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 9.097

5.  Short-term effects of noisy pressure support ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Authors:  Peter M Spieth; Andreas Güldner; Robert Huhle; Alessandro Beda; Thomas Bluth; Dierk Schreiter; Max Ragaller; Birgit Gottschlich; Thomas Kiss; Samir Jaber; Paolo Pelosi; Thea Koch; Marcelo Gama de Abreu
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2013-10-31       Impact factor: 9.097

6.  Lung protection during non-invasive synchronized assist versus volume control in rabbits.

Authors:  Lucia Mirabella; Giacomo Grasselli; Jack J Haitsma; Haibo Zhang; Arthur S Slutsky; Christer Sinderby; Jennifer Beck
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  Low tidal volume pressure support versus controlled ventilation in early experimental sepsis in pigs.

Authors:  Alexander Ziebart; Erik K Hartmann; Rainer Thomas; Tanghua Liu; Bastian Duenges; Arno Schad; Marc Bodenstein; Serge C Thal; Matthias David
Journal:  Respir Res       Date:  2014-09-06

8.  Management and outcome of mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Yuda Sutherasan; Oscar Peñuelas; Alfonso Muriel; Maria Vargas; Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Iole Brunetti; Konstantinos Raymondos; Davide D'Antini; Niklas Nielsen; Niall D Ferguson; Bernd W Böttiger; Arnaud W Thille; Andrew R Davies; Javier Hurtado; Fernando Rios; Carlos Apezteguía; Damian A Violi; Nahit Cakar; Marco González; Bin Du; Michael A Kuiper; Marco Antonio Soares; Younsuck Koh; Rui P Moreno; Pravin Amin; Vinko Tomicic; Luis Soto; Hans-Henrik Bülow; Antonio Anzueto; Andrés Esteban; Paolo Pelosi
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 9.097

9.  Biphasic positive airway pressure minimizes biological impact on lung tissue in mild acute lung injury independent of etiology.

Authors:  Felipe Saddy; Lillian Moraes; Cintia Lourenço Santos; Gisele Pena Oliveira; Fernanda Ferreira Cruz; Marcelo Marcos Morales; Vera Luiza Capelozzi; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Cristiane Souza Nascimento Baez Garcia; Paolo Pelosi; Patricia Rieken Macêdo Rocco
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 9.097

10.  Variable versus conventional lung protective mechanical ventilation during open abdominal surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Peter M Spieth; Andreas Güldner; Christopher Uhlig; Thomas Bluth; Thomas Kiss; Marcus J Schultz; Paolo Pelosi; Thea Koch; Marcelo Gama de Abreu
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.