Cargando…
The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of Being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units
BACKGROUND: The conventional method for ventilation is supported by accommodative or adaptive support ventilation (ASV) that the latter method is done with two methods: ASV minute ventilation (mv): 110% and ASV mv: 120%. Regarding these methods this study compared the differences in duration of mech...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434676/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28553625 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.205526 |
_version_ | 1783237095069843456 |
---|---|
author | Kiaei, Babak Ali Kashefi, Parviz Hashemi, Seyed Taghi Moradi, Daryoush Mobasheri, Ahmad |
author_facet | Kiaei, Babak Ali Kashefi, Parviz Hashemi, Seyed Taghi Moradi, Daryoush Mobasheri, Ahmad |
author_sort | Kiaei, Babak Ali |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The conventional method for ventilation is supported by accommodative or adaptive support ventilation (ASV) that the latter method is done with two methods: ASV minute ventilation (mv): 110% and ASV mv: 120%. Regarding these methods this study compared the differences in duration of mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic changes during recovery and length of stay in Intensive Care Units (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a clinical trial study, forty patients candidate for ventilation were selected and randomly divided into two groups of A and B. All patients were ventilated by Rafael ventilator. Ventilator parameters were set on ASV mv: 110% or ASV mv: 120% and patients were monitored on pulse oximetry, electrocardiography monitoring, central vein pressure and arterial pressure. Finally, the data entered to computer and analyzed by SPSS software. RESULTS: The time average of connection to ventilator in two groups in modes of ASV mv: 110% and 120% was 12.3 ± 3.66 and 10.8 ± 2.07 days respectively, and according to t-test, there was no significant difference between two groups (P = 0.11). The average of length of stay in ICU in two groups of 110% and 120% was 16.35 ± 3.51 and 15.5 ± 2.62 days respectively, and according to t-test, there found to be no significant difference between two groups (P = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Using ASV mv: 120% can decrease extubation time compared with ASV mv: 110%. Furthermore, there is not a considerable side effect on hemodynamic of patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5434676 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54346762017-05-26 The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of Being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units Kiaei, Babak Ali Kashefi, Parviz Hashemi, Seyed Taghi Moradi, Daryoush Mobasheri, Ahmad Adv Biomed Res Original Article BACKGROUND: The conventional method for ventilation is supported by accommodative or adaptive support ventilation (ASV) that the latter method is done with two methods: ASV minute ventilation (mv): 110% and ASV mv: 120%. Regarding these methods this study compared the differences in duration of mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic changes during recovery and length of stay in Intensive Care Units (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a clinical trial study, forty patients candidate for ventilation were selected and randomly divided into two groups of A and B. All patients were ventilated by Rafael ventilator. Ventilator parameters were set on ASV mv: 110% or ASV mv: 120% and patients were monitored on pulse oximetry, electrocardiography monitoring, central vein pressure and arterial pressure. Finally, the data entered to computer and analyzed by SPSS software. RESULTS: The time average of connection to ventilator in two groups in modes of ASV mv: 110% and 120% was 12.3 ± 3.66 and 10.8 ± 2.07 days respectively, and according to t-test, there was no significant difference between two groups (P = 0.11). The average of length of stay in ICU in two groups of 110% and 120% was 16.35 ± 3.51 and 15.5 ± 2.62 days respectively, and according to t-test, there found to be no significant difference between two groups (P = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Using ASV mv: 120% can decrease extubation time compared with ASV mv: 110%. Furthermore, there is not a considerable side effect on hemodynamic of patients. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5434676/ /pubmed/28553625 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.205526 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Advanced Biomedical Research http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kiaei, Babak Ali Kashefi, Parviz Hashemi, Seyed Taghi Moradi, Daryoush Mobasheri, Ahmad The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of Being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units |
title | The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of Being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units |
title_full | The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of Being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units |
title_fullStr | The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of Being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units |
title_full_unstemmed | The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of Being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units |
title_short | The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of Being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units |
title_sort | comparison effects of two methods of (adaptive support ventilation minute ventilation: 110% and adaptive support ventilation minute ventilation: 120%) on mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic changes and length of being in recovery in intensive care units |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434676/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28553625 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.205526 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kiaeibabakali thecomparisoneffectsoftwomethodsofadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation110andadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation120onmechanicalventilationandhemodynamicchangesandlengthofbeinginrecoveryinintensivecareunits AT kashefiparviz thecomparisoneffectsoftwomethodsofadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation110andadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation120onmechanicalventilationandhemodynamicchangesandlengthofbeinginrecoveryinintensivecareunits AT hashemiseyedtaghi thecomparisoneffectsoftwomethodsofadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation110andadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation120onmechanicalventilationandhemodynamicchangesandlengthofbeinginrecoveryinintensivecareunits AT moradidaryoush thecomparisoneffectsoftwomethodsofadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation110andadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation120onmechanicalventilationandhemodynamicchangesandlengthofbeinginrecoveryinintensivecareunits AT mobasheriahmad thecomparisoneffectsoftwomethodsofadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation110andadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation120onmechanicalventilationandhemodynamicchangesandlengthofbeinginrecoveryinintensivecareunits AT kiaeibabakali comparisoneffectsoftwomethodsofadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation110andadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation120onmechanicalventilationandhemodynamicchangesandlengthofbeinginrecoveryinintensivecareunits AT kashefiparviz comparisoneffectsoftwomethodsofadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation110andadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation120onmechanicalventilationandhemodynamicchangesandlengthofbeinginrecoveryinintensivecareunits AT hashemiseyedtaghi comparisoneffectsoftwomethodsofadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation110andadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation120onmechanicalventilationandhemodynamicchangesandlengthofbeinginrecoveryinintensivecareunits AT moradidaryoush comparisoneffectsoftwomethodsofadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation110andadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation120onmechanicalventilationandhemodynamicchangesandlengthofbeinginrecoveryinintensivecareunits AT mobasheriahmad comparisoneffectsoftwomethodsofadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation110andadaptivesupportventilationminuteventilation120onmechanicalventilationandhemodynamicchangesandlengthofbeinginrecoveryinintensivecareunits |