Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Effect of inspiratory synchronization during pressure-controlled ventilation on lung distension and inspiratory effort
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Effect of inspiratory synchronization during pressure-controlled ventilation on lung distension and inspiratory effort
Do you wish to request the book?
Effect of inspiratory synchronization during pressure-controlled ventilation on lung distension and inspiratory effort
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Effect of inspiratory synchronization during pressure-controlled ventilation on lung distension and inspiratory effort
2017
Overview
Background
In pressure-controlled (PC) ventilation, tidal volume (
V
T
) and transpulmonary pressure (
P
L
) result from the addition of ventilator pressure and the patient’s inspiratory effort. PC modes can be classified into fully, partially, and non-synchronized modes, and the degree of synchronization may result in different
V
T
and
P
L
despite identical ventilator settings. This study assessed the effects of three PC modes on
V
T
,
P
L
, inspiratory effort (esophageal pressure–time product, PTP
es
), and airway occlusion pressure,
P
0.1
. We also assessed whether
P
0.1
can be used for evaluating patient effort.
Methods
Prospective, randomized, crossover physiologic study performed in 14 spontaneously breathing mechanically ventilated patients recovering from acute respiratory failure (1 subsequently withdrew). PC modes were fully (PC-CMV), partially (PC-SIMV), and non-synchronized (PC-IMV using airway pressure release ventilation) and were applied randomly; driving pressure, inspiratory time, and set respiratory rate being similar for all modes. Airway, esophageal pressure,
P
0.1
, airflow, gas exchange, and hemodynamics were recorded.
Results
V
T
was significantly lower during PC-IMV as compared with PC-SIMV and PC-CMV (387 ± 105 vs 458 ± 134 vs 482 ± 108 mL, respectively;
p
< 0.05). Maximal
P
L
was also significantly lower (13.3 ± 4.9 vs 15.3 ± 5.7 vs 15.5 ± 5.2 cmH
2
O, respectively;
p
< 0.05), but PTP
es
was significantly higher in PC-IMV (215.6 ± 154.3 vs 150.0 ± 102.4 vs 130.9 ± 101.8 cmH
2
O × s × min
−1
, respectively;
p
< 0.05), with no differences in gas exchange and hemodynamic variables. PTP
es
increased by more than 15% in 10 patients and by more than 50% in 5 patients. An increased
P
0.1
could identify high levels of PTP
es
.
Conclusions
Non-synchronized PC mode lowers
V
T
and
P
L
in comparison with more synchronized modes in spontaneously breathing patients but can increase patient effort and may need specific adjustments.
Clinical Trial Registration
Clinicaltrial.gov # NCT02071277
Publisher
Springer International Publishing,Springer Nature B.V,SpringerOpen
