| Literature DB >> 25368544 |
Carlos Ferrando1, Marisa García1, Andrea Gutierrez1, Jose A Carbonell1, Gerardo Aguilar1, Marina Soro1, Francisco J Belda1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Historically, the elective ventilatory flow pattern for neonates has been decelerating flow (DF). Decelerating flow waveform has been suggested to improve gas exchange in the neonate when compared with square flow (SF) waveform by improving the ventilation perfusion. However, the superiority of DF compared with SF has not yet been demonstrated during ventilation in small infants. The aim of this study was to compare SF vs. DF, with or without end-inspiratory pause (EIP), in terms of oxygenation and ventilation in an experimental model of newborn piglets. <br> METHODS: The lungs of 12 newborn Landrace/LargeWhite crossbred piglets were ventilated with SF, DF, SF-EIP and DF-EIP. Tidal volume (VT), inspiratory to expiratory ratio (I/E), respiratory rate (RR), and FiO2 were keep constant during the study. In order to assure an open lung during the study while preventing alveolar collapse, a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 6 cmH2O was applied after a single recruitment maneuver. Gas exchange, lung mechanics and hemodynamics were measured. <br> RESULTS: The inspiratory flow waveform had no effect on arterial oxygenation pressure (PaO2) (276 vs. 278 mmHg, p = 0.77), alveolar dead space to alveolar tidal volume (VDalv/VTalv) (0.21 vs. 0.19 ml, p = 0.33), mean airway pressure (Pawm) (13.1 vs. 14.0 cmH2O, p = 0.69) and compliance (Crs) (3.5 vs. 3.5 ml cmH2O(-1), p = 0.73) when comparing SF and DF. A short EIP (10%) did not produce changes in the results. <br> CONCLUSION: The present study showed that there are no differences between SF, DF, SF-EIP and DF-EIP in oxygenation, ventilation, lung mechanics, or hemodynamics in this experimental model of newborn piglets with healthy lungs.Entities:
Keywords: Flow waveform; Mechanical Ventilation; Oxygenation; Pediatrics; Ventilation
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25368544 PMCID: PMC4216830 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2253-14-96
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Anesthesiol ISSN: 1471-2253 Impact factor: 2.217
Figure 1Representative flow patterns studied with their respective pressure–time curve, all at the same tidal volumen, respiratory rate, positive end-expiratory pressure and inspiratory to expiratory ratio. DF-EIP: decelerating flow with 10% end-inspiratory pressure, DF: decelerating flow, SF-EIP: square flow with 10% end-inspiratory pressure, SF: square flow. TI: Inspiratory time.
Oxygenation and ventilation parameters
| MODE | Baseline | End | Difference between delta values | Difference between delta values of all modes | Difference between end-values of SF and DF | Difference between end-values of SF and SF EIP | Difference between end-values of DF and DF EIP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | p-value | p-value | p-value | p-value | p-value | ||
|
|
| 274 ± 22 | 283 ± 28 | 8 ± 22 | 0,58 | 0,19 | 0,77 | 0,25 | 0,17 |
|
| 275 ± 26 | 279 ± 23 | 5 ± 21 | 0,75 | |||||
|
| 269 ± 25 | 276 ± 24 | 7 ± 18 | 0,36 | |||||
|
| 281 ± 22 | 278 ± 24 | −4 ± 17 | 0,27 | |||||
|
|
| 39 ± 4 | 38 ± 5 | −1 ± 4 | 0,54 | 0,76 | 0,42 | 0,16 | 0,53 |
|
| 40 ± 7 | 39 ± 7 | −1 ± 5 | 0,62 | |||||
|
| 39 ± 6 | 42 ± 6 | 1 ± 5 | 0,27 | |||||
|
| 39 ± 6 | 39 ± 5 | 0 ± 3 | 0,74 | |||||
|
|
| 0,20 ± 0,1 | 0,21 ± 0,1 | 0,01 ± 0,05 | 0,46 | 0,16 | 0,33 | 0,59 | 0,73 |
|
| 0,22 ± 0,1 | 0,20 ± 0,1 | −0,05 ± 0,03 | 0,51 | |||||
|
| 0,20 ± 0,1 | 0,19 ± 0,1 | −0,01 ± 0,04 | 0,12 | |||||
|
| 0,20 ± 0,1 | 0,21 ± 0,1 | 0,04 ± 0,02 | 0,09 | |||||
Data are presented as mean ± SD. Delta: end – baseline values. SF: square flow, DF: decelerating flow, SFEIP: square flow with end-inspiratory pause, DFEIP: decelerating flow with end-inspiratory pause. PaO2: arterial oxygen tension (mmHg), PaCO2: arterial carbon dioxide tension (mmHg), VD/VT: alveolar dead space to alveolar VT ratio.
*when significant, P <0,05.
Respiratory mechanics parameters
| SF | DF | SF EIP | DF EIP | Difference between end- values of all modes | Difference between end-values of SF and DF | Difference between end-values of SF and SF EIP | Difference between end-values of DF and DF EIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-value | p-value | p-value | p-value | |||||
|
| 13 ± 2 | 14 ± 1 | 13 ± 1 | 13 ± 2 | 0,56 | 0,69 | 0,72 | 0,22 |
|
| 23 ± 7 | 22 ± 2 | 21 ± 2 | 21 ± 1 | 0,51 | 0,68 | 0,47 | 0,44 |
|
| 3,5 ± 0,4 | 3,5 ± 0,5 | 3,5 ± 0,6 | 3,6 ± 0,2 | 0,39 | 0,73 | 0,87 | 0,36 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD. Delta: end – baseline values. SF: square flow, DF: decelerating flow, SFEIP: square flow with end-inspiratory pause, DFEIP: decelerating flow with end-inspiratory pause. Pawm: mean airway pressure (cm H2O) PIP: Peak inspiratory pressure (cm H2O), Crs: respiratory system compliance (ml cm H2O−1).
*when significant, P <0,05.
Hemodynamic parameters
| SF | DF | SF EIP | DF EIP | Difference between end values in all modes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-value | |||||
|
| 5,31 ± 1,6 | 5,15 ± 0,9 | 5,23 ± 1,2 | 5,59 ± 1,7 | 0,36 |
|
| 75 ± 12 | 83 ± 12 | 82 ± 16 | 81 ± 11 | 0,89 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD. CI: cardiac index (ml Kg−1 min−1), MAP: mean arterial pressure (mm Hg). *when significant, P <0,05.