Cargando…

Clinical review: Biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation

This review focuses on mechanical ventilation strategies that allow unsupported spontaneous breathing activity in any phase of the ventilatory cycle. By allowing patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome to breathe spontaneously, one can expect improvements in gas exchange and systemic b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Putensen, Christian, Wrigge, Hermann
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1065046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15566621
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc2919
_version_ 1782123333723095040
author Putensen, Christian
Wrigge, Hermann
author_facet Putensen, Christian
Wrigge, Hermann
author_sort Putensen, Christian
collection PubMed
description This review focuses on mechanical ventilation strategies that allow unsupported spontaneous breathing activity in any phase of the ventilatory cycle. By allowing patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome to breathe spontaneously, one can expect improvements in gas exchange and systemic blood flow, based on findings from both experimental and clinical trials. In addition, by increasing end-expiratory lung volume, as occurs when using biphasic positive airway pressure or airway pressure release ventilation, recruitment of collapsed or consolidated lung is likely to occur, especially in juxtadiaphragmatic lung legions. Traditional approaches to mechanical ventilatory support of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome require adaptation of the patient to the mechanical ventilator using heavy sedation and even muscle relaxation. Recent investigations have questioned the utility of sedation, muscle paralysis and mechanical control of ventilation. Furthermore, evidence exists that lowering sedation levels will decrease the duration of mechanical ventilatory support, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and overall costs of hospitalization. Based on currently available data, we suggest considering the use of techniques of mechanical ventilatory support that maintain, rather than suppress, spontaneous ventilatory effort, especially in patients with severe pulmonary dysfunction.
format Text
id pubmed-1065046
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-10650462005-03-16 Clinical review: Biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation Putensen, Christian Wrigge, Hermann Crit Care Review This review focuses on mechanical ventilation strategies that allow unsupported spontaneous breathing activity in any phase of the ventilatory cycle. By allowing patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome to breathe spontaneously, one can expect improvements in gas exchange and systemic blood flow, based on findings from both experimental and clinical trials. In addition, by increasing end-expiratory lung volume, as occurs when using biphasic positive airway pressure or airway pressure release ventilation, recruitment of collapsed or consolidated lung is likely to occur, especially in juxtadiaphragmatic lung legions. Traditional approaches to mechanical ventilatory support of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome require adaptation of the patient to the mechanical ventilator using heavy sedation and even muscle relaxation. Recent investigations have questioned the utility of sedation, muscle paralysis and mechanical control of ventilation. Furthermore, evidence exists that lowering sedation levels will decrease the duration of mechanical ventilatory support, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and overall costs of hospitalization. Based on currently available data, we suggest considering the use of techniques of mechanical ventilatory support that maintain, rather than suppress, spontaneous ventilatory effort, especially in patients with severe pulmonary dysfunction. BioMed Central 2004 2004-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC1065046/ /pubmed/15566621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc2919 Text en Copyright © 2004 BioMed Central Ltd
spellingShingle Review
Putensen, Christian
Wrigge, Hermann
Clinical review: Biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation
title Clinical review: Biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation
title_full Clinical review: Biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation
title_fullStr Clinical review: Biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation
title_full_unstemmed Clinical review: Biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation
title_short Clinical review: Biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation
title_sort clinical review: biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1065046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15566621
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc2919
work_keys_str_mv AT putensenchristian clinicalreviewbiphasicpositiveairwaypressureandairwaypressurereleaseventilation
AT wriggehermann clinicalreviewbiphasicpositiveairwaypressureandairwaypressurereleaseventilation