Cargando…
Ultra-protective tidal volume: how low should we go?
Applying tidal volumes of less than 6 mL/kg might improve lung protection in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. In a recent article, Retamal and colleagues showed that such a reduction is feasible with conventional mechanical ventilation and leads to less tidal recruitment and overdi...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672527/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23551995 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc12556 |
_version_ | 1782272117786542080 |
---|---|
author | Costa, Eduardo LV Amato, Marcelo BP |
author_facet | Costa, Eduardo LV Amato, Marcelo BP |
author_sort | Costa, Eduardo LV |
collection | PubMed |
description | Applying tidal volumes of less than 6 mL/kg might improve lung protection in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. In a recent article, Retamal and colleagues showed that such a reduction is feasible with conventional mechanical ventilation and leads to less tidal recruitment and overdistension without causing carbon dioxide retention or auto-positive end-expiratory pressure. However, whether the compensatory increase in the respiratory rate blunts the lung protection remains unestablished. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3672527 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-36725272014-03-28 Ultra-protective tidal volume: how low should we go? Costa, Eduardo LV Amato, Marcelo BP Crit Care Commentary Applying tidal volumes of less than 6 mL/kg might improve lung protection in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. In a recent article, Retamal and colleagues showed that such a reduction is feasible with conventional mechanical ventilation and leads to less tidal recruitment and overdistension without causing carbon dioxide retention or auto-positive end-expiratory pressure. However, whether the compensatory increase in the respiratory rate blunts the lung protection remains unestablished. BioMed Central 2013 2013-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3672527/ /pubmed/23551995 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc12556 Text en Copyright © 2013 BioMed Central Ltd |
spellingShingle | Commentary Costa, Eduardo LV Amato, Marcelo BP Ultra-protective tidal volume: how low should we go? |
title | Ultra-protective tidal volume: how low should we go? |
title_full | Ultra-protective tidal volume: how low should we go? |
title_fullStr | Ultra-protective tidal volume: how low should we go? |
title_full_unstemmed | Ultra-protective tidal volume: how low should we go? |
title_short | Ultra-protective tidal volume: how low should we go? |
title_sort | ultra-protective tidal volume: how low should we go? |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672527/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23551995 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc12556 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT costaeduardolv ultraprotectivetidalvolumehowlowshouldwego AT amatomarcelobp ultraprotectivetidalvolumehowlowshouldwego |