Cargando…

Negative- versus positive-pressure ventilation in intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

INTRODUCTION: Recent experimental data suggest that continuous external negative-pressure ventilation (CENPV) results in better oxygenation and less lung injury than continuous positive-pressure ventilation (CPPV). The effects of CENPV on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) rema...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Raymondos, Konstantinos, Molitoris, Ulrich, Capewell, Marcus, Sander, Björn, Dieck, Thorben, Ahrens, Jörg, Weilbach, Christian, Knitsch, Wolfgang, Corrado, Antonio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3681349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22386062
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc11216
_version_ 1782273248066535424
author Raymondos, Konstantinos
Molitoris, Ulrich
Capewell, Marcus
Sander, Björn
Dieck, Thorben
Ahrens, Jörg
Weilbach, Christian
Knitsch, Wolfgang
Corrado, Antonio
author_facet Raymondos, Konstantinos
Molitoris, Ulrich
Capewell, Marcus
Sander, Björn
Dieck, Thorben
Ahrens, Jörg
Weilbach, Christian
Knitsch, Wolfgang
Corrado, Antonio
author_sort Raymondos, Konstantinos
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Recent experimental data suggest that continuous external negative-pressure ventilation (CENPV) results in better oxygenation and less lung injury than continuous positive-pressure ventilation (CPPV). The effects of CENPV on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unknown. METHODS: We compared 2 h CENPV in a tankrespirator ("iron lung") with 2 h CPPV. The six intubated patients developed ARDS after pulmonary thrombectomy (n = 1), aspiration (n = 3), sepsis (n = 1) or both (n = 1). We used a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg predicted body weight and matched lung volumes at end expiration. Haemodynamics were assessed using the pulse contour cardiac output (PiCCO) system, and pressure measurements were referenced to atmospheric pressure. RESULTS: CENPV resulted in better oxygenation compared to CPPV (median ratio of arterial oxygen pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen of 345 mmHg (minimum-maximum 183 to 438 mmHg) vs 256 mmHg (minimum-maximum 123 to 419 mmHg) (P < 0.05). Tank pressures were -32.5 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum -30 to -43) at end inspiration and -15 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum -15 to -19 cmH(2)O) at end expiration. NO Inspiratory transpulmonary pressures decreased (P = 0.04) and airway pressures were considerably lower at inspiration (-1.5 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum -3 to 0 cmH(2)O) vs 34.5 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum 30 to 47 cmH(2)O), P = 0.03) and expiration (4.5 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum 2 to 5) vs 16 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum 16 to 23), P =0.03). During CENPV, intraabdominal pressures decreased from 20.5 mmHg (12 to 30 mmHg) to 1 mmHg (minimum-maximum -7 to 5 mmHg) (P = 0.03). Arterial pressures decreased by approximately 10 mmHg and central venous pressures by 18 mmHg. Intrathoracic blood volume indices and cardiac indices increased at the initiation of CENPV by 15% and 20% (P < 0.05), respectively. Heart rate and extravascular lung water indices remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: CENPV with a tank respirator improved gas exchange in patients with ARDS at lower transpulmonary, airway and intraabdominal pressures and, at least initially improving haemodynamics. Our observations encourage the consideration of further studies on the physiological effects and the clinical effectiveness of CENPV in patients with ARDS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3681349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36813492013-06-25 Negative- versus positive-pressure ventilation in intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome Raymondos, Konstantinos Molitoris, Ulrich Capewell, Marcus Sander, Björn Dieck, Thorben Ahrens, Jörg Weilbach, Christian Knitsch, Wolfgang Corrado, Antonio Crit Care Research INTRODUCTION: Recent experimental data suggest that continuous external negative-pressure ventilation (CENPV) results in better oxygenation and less lung injury than continuous positive-pressure ventilation (CPPV). The effects of CENPV on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unknown. METHODS: We compared 2 h CENPV in a tankrespirator ("iron lung") with 2 h CPPV. The six intubated patients developed ARDS after pulmonary thrombectomy (n = 1), aspiration (n = 3), sepsis (n = 1) or both (n = 1). We used a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg predicted body weight and matched lung volumes at end expiration. Haemodynamics were assessed using the pulse contour cardiac output (PiCCO) system, and pressure measurements were referenced to atmospheric pressure. RESULTS: CENPV resulted in better oxygenation compared to CPPV (median ratio of arterial oxygen pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen of 345 mmHg (minimum-maximum 183 to 438 mmHg) vs 256 mmHg (minimum-maximum 123 to 419 mmHg) (P < 0.05). Tank pressures were -32.5 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum -30 to -43) at end inspiration and -15 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum -15 to -19 cmH(2)O) at end expiration. NO Inspiratory transpulmonary pressures decreased (P = 0.04) and airway pressures were considerably lower at inspiration (-1.5 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum -3 to 0 cmH(2)O) vs 34.5 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum 30 to 47 cmH(2)O), P = 0.03) and expiration (4.5 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum 2 to 5) vs 16 cmH(2)O (minimum-maximum 16 to 23), P =0.03). During CENPV, intraabdominal pressures decreased from 20.5 mmHg (12 to 30 mmHg) to 1 mmHg (minimum-maximum -7 to 5 mmHg) (P = 0.03). Arterial pressures decreased by approximately 10 mmHg and central venous pressures by 18 mmHg. Intrathoracic blood volume indices and cardiac indices increased at the initiation of CENPV by 15% and 20% (P < 0.05), respectively. Heart rate and extravascular lung water indices remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: CENPV with a tank respirator improved gas exchange in patients with ARDS at lower transpulmonary, airway and intraabdominal pressures and, at least initially improving haemodynamics. Our observations encourage the consideration of further studies on the physiological effects and the clinical effectiveness of CENPV in patients with ARDS. BioMed Central 2012 2012-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3681349/ /pubmed/22386062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc11216 Text en Copyright ©2012 Raymondos et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Raymondos, Konstantinos
Molitoris, Ulrich
Capewell, Marcus
Sander, Björn
Dieck, Thorben
Ahrens, Jörg
Weilbach, Christian
Knitsch, Wolfgang
Corrado, Antonio
Negative- versus positive-pressure ventilation in intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
title Negative- versus positive-pressure ventilation in intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
title_full Negative- versus positive-pressure ventilation in intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
title_fullStr Negative- versus positive-pressure ventilation in intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
title_full_unstemmed Negative- versus positive-pressure ventilation in intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
title_short Negative- versus positive-pressure ventilation in intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
title_sort negative- versus positive-pressure ventilation in intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3681349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22386062
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc11216
work_keys_str_mv AT raymondoskonstantinos negativeversuspositivepressureventilationinintubatedpatientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT molitorisulrich negativeversuspositivepressureventilationinintubatedpatientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT capewellmarcus negativeversuspositivepressureventilationinintubatedpatientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT sanderbjorn negativeversuspositivepressureventilationinintubatedpatientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT dieckthorben negativeversuspositivepressureventilationinintubatedpatientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT ahrensjorg negativeversuspositivepressureventilationinintubatedpatientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT weilbachchristian negativeversuspositivepressureventilationinintubatedpatientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT knitschwolfgang negativeversuspositivepressureventilationinintubatedpatientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT corradoantonio negativeversuspositivepressureventilationinintubatedpatientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome