Cargando…

Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gastric mucosal perfusion in acute respiratory distress syndrome

INTRODUCTION: Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improves oxygenation and can prevent ventilator-induced lung injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Nevertheless, PEEP can also induce detrimental effects by its influence on the cardiovascular system. The purpose of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bruhn, Alejandro, Hernandez, Glenn, Bugedo, Guillermo, Castillo, Luis
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1065018/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15469573
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc2905
_version_ 1782123326792007680
author Bruhn, Alejandro
Hernandez, Glenn
Bugedo, Guillermo
Castillo, Luis
author_facet Bruhn, Alejandro
Hernandez, Glenn
Bugedo, Guillermo
Castillo, Luis
author_sort Bruhn, Alejandro
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improves oxygenation and can prevent ventilator-induced lung injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Nevertheless, PEEP can also induce detrimental effects by its influence on the cardiovascular system. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of PEEP on gastric mucosal perfusion while applying a protective ventilatory strategy in patients with ARDS. METHODS: Eight patients were included. A pressure–volume curve was traced and ideal PEEP, defined as lower inflection point + 2 cmH(2)O, was determined. Gastric tonometry was measured continuously (Tonocap). After baseline measurements, 10, 15 and 20 cmH(2)O PEEP and ideal PEEP were applied for 30 min each. By the end of each period, hemodynamic, CO(2 )gap (gastric minus arterial partial pressures), and ventilatory measurements were performed. RESULTS: PEEP had no effect on CO(2 )gap (median [range], baseline: 19 [2–30] mmHg; PEEP 10: 19 [0–40] mmHg; PEEP 15: 18 [0–39] mmHg; PEEP 20: 17 [4–39] mmHg; ideal PEEP: 19 [9–39] mmHg; P = 0.18). Cardiac index also remained unchanged (baseline: 4.6 [2.5–6.3] l min(-1 )m(-2); PEEP 10: 4.5 [2.5–6.9] l min(-1 )m(-2); PEEP 15: 4.3 [2–6.8] l min(-1 )m(-2); PEEP 20: 4.7 [2.4–6.2] l min(-1 )m(-2); ideal PEEP: 5.1 [2.1–6.3] l min(-1 )m(-2); P = 0.08). One patient did not complete the protocol because of hypotension. CONCLUSION: PEEP of 10–20 cmH(2)O does not affect gastric mucosal perfusion and is hemodynamically well tolerated in most patients with ARDS, including those receiving adrenergic drugs.
format Text
id pubmed-1065018
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-10650182005-03-16 Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gastric mucosal perfusion in acute respiratory distress syndrome Bruhn, Alejandro Hernandez, Glenn Bugedo, Guillermo Castillo, Luis Crit Care Research INTRODUCTION: Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improves oxygenation and can prevent ventilator-induced lung injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Nevertheless, PEEP can also induce detrimental effects by its influence on the cardiovascular system. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of PEEP on gastric mucosal perfusion while applying a protective ventilatory strategy in patients with ARDS. METHODS: Eight patients were included. A pressure–volume curve was traced and ideal PEEP, defined as lower inflection point + 2 cmH(2)O, was determined. Gastric tonometry was measured continuously (Tonocap). After baseline measurements, 10, 15 and 20 cmH(2)O PEEP and ideal PEEP were applied for 30 min each. By the end of each period, hemodynamic, CO(2 )gap (gastric minus arterial partial pressures), and ventilatory measurements were performed. RESULTS: PEEP had no effect on CO(2 )gap (median [range], baseline: 19 [2–30] mmHg; PEEP 10: 19 [0–40] mmHg; PEEP 15: 18 [0–39] mmHg; PEEP 20: 17 [4–39] mmHg; ideal PEEP: 19 [9–39] mmHg; P = 0.18). Cardiac index also remained unchanged (baseline: 4.6 [2.5–6.3] l min(-1 )m(-2); PEEP 10: 4.5 [2.5–6.9] l min(-1 )m(-2); PEEP 15: 4.3 [2–6.8] l min(-1 )m(-2); PEEP 20: 4.7 [2.4–6.2] l min(-1 )m(-2); ideal PEEP: 5.1 [2.1–6.3] l min(-1 )m(-2); P = 0.08). One patient did not complete the protocol because of hypotension. CONCLUSION: PEEP of 10–20 cmH(2)O does not affect gastric mucosal perfusion and is hemodynamically well tolerated in most patients with ARDS, including those receiving adrenergic drugs. BioMed Central 2004-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC1065018/ /pubmed/15469573 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc2905 Text en Copyright © 2004 Bruhn et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article: verbartim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with article's original URL. (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/2.0)
spellingShingle Research
Bruhn, Alejandro
Hernandez, Glenn
Bugedo, Guillermo
Castillo, Luis
Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gastric mucosal perfusion in acute respiratory distress syndrome
title Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gastric mucosal perfusion in acute respiratory distress syndrome
title_full Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gastric mucosal perfusion in acute respiratory distress syndrome
title_fullStr Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gastric mucosal perfusion in acute respiratory distress syndrome
title_full_unstemmed Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gastric mucosal perfusion in acute respiratory distress syndrome
title_short Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gastric mucosal perfusion in acute respiratory distress syndrome
title_sort effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gastric mucosal perfusion in acute respiratory distress syndrome
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1065018/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15469573
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc2905
work_keys_str_mv AT bruhnalejandro effectsofpositiveendexpiratorypressureongastricmucosalperfusioninacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT hernandezglenn effectsofpositiveendexpiratorypressureongastricmucosalperfusioninacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT bugedoguillermo effectsofpositiveendexpiratorypressureongastricmucosalperfusioninacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT castilloluis effectsofpositiveendexpiratorypressureongastricmucosalperfusioninacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome