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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kiaei, Babak Ali, Kashefi, Parviz, Hashemi, Seyed Taghi, Moradi, Daryoush, Mobasheri, Ahmad
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