Literature DB >> 6380937

Hemodynamic effects of continuous positive-pressure ventilation and high-frequency jet ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure in normal dogs.

M Chiaranda, A Rubini, G Fiore, G Giron, G C Carlon.   

Abstract

The hemodynamic effects of high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) at 60, 120, 240, and 480 breath/min, and conventional ventilation at 15 breath/min were compared in 6 anesthetized, paralyzed dogs, at 0, 10, and 20 cm H2O of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). On HFJV at the same inspired oxygen, PaCO2, and PEEP levels, hemodynamic function improved significantly. Cardiac output was higher, whereas transmural CVP and pulmonary vascular resistances were lower. The improvement was primarily related to a decrease in mean airway pressure, particularly at higher PEEP levels. When PEEP was applied, hemodynamic function improved even when mean airway pressure was maintained constant. The findings suggest that lung volume was smaller during HFJV, and/or that lung volume changes during each respiratory cycle contributed to differences in venous return and ventricular function.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6380937     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-198409000-00014

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


  5 in total

1.  The effects of high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) on pneumoperitoneum-induced cardiovascular changes during laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  A Bickel; A Trossman; I Kukuev; A Eitan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Comparison of high-frequency jet ventilation to conventional ventilation in adults with respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  L Holzapfel; D Robert; F Perrin; P Gaussorgues; D P Giudicelli
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Hemodynamic effects of high-frequency jet ventilation in dogs with acute right coronary arterial ligation and pulmonary arterial banding.

Authors:  K Ushijima; Y Oka; P Weinberg; H Kitahata; E L Yellin; P L Goldiner
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 2.078

4.  High frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) has no better haemodynamic tolerance than controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) in cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  G Crimi; G Conti; M Bufi; M Antonelli; R A de Blasi; C Mattia; R Romano; A Gasparetto
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Bubble-CPAP vs. Ventilatory-CPAP in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress.

Authors:  Bahareh Bahman-Bijari; Arash Malekiyan; Pedram Niknafs; Mohammad-Reza Baneshi
Journal:  Iran J Pediatr       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 0.364

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.