Literature DB >> 30277932

Positive End-expiratory Pressure and Mechanical Power.

Francesca Collino1, Francesca Rapetti, Francesco Vasques, Giorgia Maiolo, Tommaso Tonetti, Federica Romitti, Julia Niewenhuys, Tim Behnemann, Luigi Camporota, Günter Hahn, Verena Reupke, Karin Holke, Peter Herrmann, Eleonora Duscio, Francesco Cipulli, Onnen Moerer, John J Marini, Michael Quintel, Luciano Gattinoni.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Positive end-expiratory pressure is usually considered protective against ventilation-induced lung injury by reducing atelectrauma and improving lung homogeneity. However, positive end-expiratory pressure, together with tidal volume, gas flow, and respiratory rate, contributes to the mechanical power required to ventilate the lung. This study aimed at investigating the effects of increasing mechanical power by selectively modifying its positive end-expiratory pressure component.
METHODS: Thirty-six healthy piglets (23.3 ± 2.3 kg) were ventilated prone for 50 h at 30 breaths/min and with a tidal volume equal to functional residual capacity. Positive end-expiratory pressure levels (0, 4, 7, 11, 14, and 18 cm H2O) were applied to six groups of six animals. Respiratory, gas exchange, and hemodynamic variables were recorded every 6 h. Lung weight and wet-to-dry ratio were measured, and histologic samples were collected.
RESULTS: Lung mechanical power was similar at 0 (8.8 ± 3.8 J/min), 4 (8.9 ± 4.4 J/min), and 7 (9.6 ± 4.3 J/min) cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure, and it linearly increased thereafter from 15.5 ± 3.6 J/min (positive end-expiratory pressure, 11 cm H2O) to 18.7 ± 6 J/min (positive end-expiratory pressure, 14 cm H2O) and 22 ± 6.1 J/min (positive end-expiratory pressure, 18 cm H2O). Lung elastances, vascular congestion, atelectasis, inflammation, and septal rupture decreased from zero end-expiratory pressure to 4 to 7 cm H2O (P < 0.0001) and increased progressively at higher positive end-expiratory pressure. At these higher positive end-expiratory pressure levels, striking hemodynamic impairment and death manifested (mortality 0% at positive end-expiratory pressure 0 to 11 cm H2O, 33% at 14 cm H2O, and 50% at 18 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure). From zero end-expiratory pressure to 18 cm H2O, mean pulmonary arterial pressure (from 19.7 ± 5.3 to 32.2 ± 9.2 mmHg), fluid administration (from 537 ± 403 to 2043 ± 930 ml), and noradrenaline infusion (0.04 ± 0.09 to 0.34 ± 0.31 μg · kg(-1) · min(-1)) progressively increased (P < 0.0001). Lung weight and lung wet-to-dry ratios were not significantly different across the groups. The lung mechanical power level that best discriminated between more versus less severe damage was 13 ± 1 J/min.
CONCLUSIONS: Less than 7 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure reduced atelectrauma encountered at zero end-expiratory pressure. Above a defined power threshold, sustained positive end-expiratory pressure contributed to potentially lethal lung damage and hemodynamic impairment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30277932     DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002458

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  21 in total

1.  Should we titrate positive end-expiratory pressure based on an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure?

Authors:  John J Marini
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-10

2.  Comparison of mechanical power estimations in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS: a secondary data analysis from the EPVent study.

Authors:  Maximilian S Schaefer; Stephen H Loring; Daniel Talmor; Elias N Baedorf-Kassis
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Effect of a Lower vs Higher Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategy on Ventilator-Free Days in ICU Patients Without ARDS: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Anna Geke Algera; Luigi Pisani; Ary Serpa Neto; Sylvia S den Boer; Frank F H Bosch; Karina Bruin; Pauline M Klooster; Nardo J M Van der Meer; Ralph O Nowitzky; Ilse M Purmer; Mathilde Slabbekoorn; Peter E Spronk; Jan van Vliet; Jan J Weenink; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Marcus J Schultz; Frederique Paulus
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  A Lower Tidal Volume Regimen during One-lung Ventilation for Lung Resection Surgery Is Not Associated with Reduced Postoperative Pulmonary Complications.

Authors:  Douglas A Colquhoun; Aleda M Leis; Amy M Shanks; Michael R Mathis; Bhiken I Naik; Marcel E Durieux; Sachin Kheterpal; Nathan L Pace; Wanda M Popescu; Robert B Schonberger; Benjamin D Kozower; Dustin M Walters; Justin D Blasberg; Andrew C Chang; Michael F Aziz; Izumi Harukuni; Brandon H Tieu; Randal S Blank
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 7.892

Review 5.  Disease Mechanisms of Perioperative Organ Injury.

Authors:  Catharina Conrad; Holger K Eltzschig
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 6.627

6.  Elastic power but not driving power is the key promoter of ventilator-induced lung injury in experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  Patricia R M Rocco; Pedro L Silva; Cynthia S Samary; Muhammad K Hayat Syed; John J Marini
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 7.  Extracorporeal gas exchange: when to start and how to end?

Authors:  L Gattinoni; F Vassalli; F Romitti; F Vasques; I Pasticci; E Duscio; M Quintel
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 9.097

8.  Response to Ventilator Adjustments for Predicting Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Mortality. Driving Pressure versus Oxygenation.

Authors:  Nadir Yehya; Carol L Hodgson; Marcelo B P Amato; Jean-Christophe Richard; Laurent J Brochard; Alain Mercat; Ewan C Goligher
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2021-05

9.  Bedside calculation of mechanical power during volume- and pressure-controlled mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  Davide Chiumello; Miriam Gotti; Mariateresa Guanziroli; Paolo Formenti; Michele Umbrello; Iacopo Pasticci; Giovanni Mistraletti; Mattia Busana
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2020-07-11       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 10.  Static and Dynamic Contributors to Ventilator-induced Lung Injury in Clinical Practice. Pressure, Energy, and Power.

Authors:  John J Marini; Patricia R M Rocco; Luciano Gattinoni
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 21.405

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.