Literature DB >> 9751587

Comparison of oxygen cost of breathing with pressure-support ventilation and biphasic intermittent positive airway pressure ventilation.

T Staudinger1, H Kordova, M Röggla, P Tesinsky, G J Locker, K Laczika, S Knapp, M Frass.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the oxygen cost of breathing with either pressure-support ventilation (PSV) or biphasic intermittent positive airway pressure ventilation (BIPAP).
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, crossover study.
SETTING: Medical intensive care unit of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty clinically stable and spontaneously breathing patients after long-term mechanical ventilation.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to start on either PSV or BIPAP, and measurements were performed after an adaptation period of 30 mins. Immediately after, the ventilatory mode was changed and after another 30-min adaptation period, the same measurements were performed.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Indirect calorimetry was performed during each ventilatory mode for a period of 30 mins. Oxygen consumption, energy expenditure, CO2 production, and respiratory quotient did not differ significantly between the two ventilatory modes, regardless of the patients' randomization. There were no statistically significant differences with regard to respiratory rate, minute volume, and blood gas analysis. All patients tolerated both ventilatory modes without any signs of discomfort.
CONCLUSIONS: Pressure support ventilation and BIPAP are both used for weaning patients gradually from the ventilator. BIPAP may be advantageous in patients not breathing sufficiently with PSV, since no patient effort is necessary with use of this ventilatory mode.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9751587     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199809000-00018

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


  7 in total

1.  Assisted ventilation modes reduce the expression of lung inflammatory and fibrogenic mediators in a model of mild acute lung injury.

Authors:  Felipe Saddy; Gisele P Oliveira; Cristiane S N B Garcia; Liliane M Nardelli; Andreia F Rzezinski; Debora S Ornellas; Marcelo M Morales; Vera L Capelozzi; Paolo Pelosi; Patricia R M Rocco
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Does PEEP impair the hepatic outflow in patients following liver transplantation?

Authors:  Fuat H Saner; Goran Pavlaković; Yanli Gu; Nils R Fruhauf; Andreas Paul; Arnold Radtke; Silvio Nadalin; Massimo Malagó; Christoph E Broelsch
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-08-29       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 3.  Airway pressure release ventilation and biphasic positive airway pressure: a systematic review of definitional criteria.

Authors:  Louise Rose; Martyn Hawkins
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 4.  Applications of airway pressure release ventilation.

Authors:  Jahan Porhomayon; A A El-Solh; Nader D Nader
Journal:  Lung       Date:  2010-01-05       Impact factor: 2.584

Review 5.  Clinical review: biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation.

Authors:  Christian Putensen; Hermann Wrigge
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2004-08-02       Impact factor: 9.097

6.  Biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation (PeV+) in children.

Authors:  A S Jaarsma; H Knoester; F van Rooyen; A P Bos
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2001-05-02       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  Ventilatory equivalent for oxygen as an extubation outcome predictor: A pilot study.

Authors:  Troy Ellens; Ramandeep Kaur; Kelly Roehl; Meagan Dubosky; David L Vines
Journal:  Can J Respir Ther       Date:  2019-07-09
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.