CONTEXT: Recruitment manoeuvres aim at reversing atelectasis during general anaesthesia but are associated with potential risks such as barotrauma. OBJECTIVE: To explore the range of pressures that can be used safely to fully recruit the lung without causing barotrauma in an ex-vivo healthy lung rabbit model. DESIGN: Prospective, randomised, experimental study. SETTING: Experimental Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. ANIMALS: Fourteen healthy young New Zealand rabbits of 12 weeks of age. INTERVENTIONS: Animals were euthanised, the thorax and both pleural spaces were opened and the animals were allocated randomly into one of two groups submitted to two distinct recruitment manoeuvre strategies: PEEP-20 group, in which positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was increased in 5-cmH2O steps from 0 to 20 cmH2O and PEEP-50 group, in which PEEP was increased in 5-cmH2O steps from 0 to 50 cmH2O. In both groups, a driving pressure of 15 cmH2O was maintained until maximal PEEP and its corresponding maximal inspiratory pressures (MIPs) were reached. From there on, driving pressure was progressively increased in 5-cmH2O steps until detectable barotrauma occurred. Two macroscopic conditions were defined: anatomically open lung and barotrauma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured open lung and barotrauma MIP, PEEP and driving pressure obtained using each strategy. A pressure safety range, defined as the difference between barotrauma MIP and anatomically open lung MIP, was also determined in both groups. RESULTS: Open lung MIP was similar in both groups: 23.6 ± 3.8 and 23.3 ± 4.1 cmH2O in the PEEP-50 and PEEP-20 groups, respectively (P = 0.91). However, barotrauma MIP in the PEEP-50 group was higher (65.7 ± 3.4 cmH2O) than in the PEEP-20 group (56.7 ± 5 0.2 cmH2O) (P = 0.003) resulting in a safety range of pressures of respectively 33.3 ± 8.7 and 42.1 ± 3.9 cmH2O (P = 0.035). CONCLUSION: In this ex-vivo model, we found a substantial difference between recruitment and barotrauma pressures using both recruitment strategies. However, a higher margin of safety was obtained when a higher PEEP and lower driving pressure strategy was used for recruiting the lung.
CONTEXT: Recruitment manoeuvres aim at reversing atelectasis during general anaesthesia but are associated with potential risks such as barotrauma. OBJECTIVE: To explore the range of pressures that can be used safely to fully recruit the lung without causing barotrauma in an ex-vivo healthy lung rabbit model. DESIGN: Prospective, randomised, experimental study. SETTING: Experimental Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. ANIMALS: Fourteen healthy young New Zealand rabbits of 12 weeks of age. INTERVENTIONS: Animals were euthanised, the thorax and both pleural spaces were opened and the animals were allocated randomly into one of two groups submitted to two distinct recruitment manoeuvre strategies: PEEP-20 group, in which positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was increased in 5-cmH2O steps from 0 to 20 cmH2O and PEEP-50 group, in which PEEP was increased in 5-cmH2O steps from 0 to 50 cmH2O. In both groups, a driving pressure of 15 cmH2O was maintained until maximal PEEP and its corresponding maximal inspiratory pressures (MIPs) were reached. From there on, driving pressure was progressively increased in 5-cmH2O steps until detectable barotrauma occurred. Two macroscopic conditions were defined: anatomically open lung and barotrauma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured open lung and barotrauma MIP, PEEP and driving pressure obtained using each strategy. A pressure safety range, defined as the difference between barotrauma MIP and anatomically open lung MIP, was also determined in both groups. RESULTS: Open lung MIP was similar in both groups: 23.6 ± 3.8 and 23.3 ± 4.1 cmH2O in the PEEP-50 and PEEP-20 groups, respectively (P = 0.91). However, barotrauma MIP in the PEEP-50 group was higher (65.7 ± 3.4 cmH2O) than in the PEEP-20 group (56.7 ± 5 0.2 cmH2O) (P = 0.003) resulting in a safety range of pressures of respectively 33.3 ± 8.7 and 42.1 ± 3.9 cmH2O (P = 0.035). CONCLUSION: In this ex-vivo model, we found a substantial difference between recruitment and barotrauma pressures using both recruitment strategies. However, a higher margin of safety was obtained when a higher PEEP and lower driving pressure strategy was used for recruiting the lung.
Authors: Carlos Ferrando; Marisa García; Andrea Gutierrez; Jose A Carbonell; Gerardo Aguilar; Marina Soro; Francisco J Belda Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 2.217