Cargando…
Comparative effects of flow vs. volume-controlled one-lung ventilation on gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics in pigs
BACKGROUND: Flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) allows expiratory flow control, reducing the collapse of the airways during expiration. The performance of FCV during one-lung ventilation (OLV) under intravascular normo- and hypovolaemia is currently unknown. In this explorative study, we hypothesised...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7746431/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33336305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-020-00308-0 |
_version_ | 1783624797429694464 |
---|---|
author | Wittenstein, Jakob Scharffenberg, Martin Ran, Xi Keller, Diana Michler, Pia Tauer, Sebastian Theilen, Raphael Kiss, Thomas Bluth, Thomas Koch, Thea Gama de Abreu, Marcelo Huhle, Robert |
author_facet | Wittenstein, Jakob Scharffenberg, Martin Ran, Xi Keller, Diana Michler, Pia Tauer, Sebastian Theilen, Raphael Kiss, Thomas Bluth, Thomas Koch, Thea Gama de Abreu, Marcelo Huhle, Robert |
author_sort | Wittenstein, Jakob |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) allows expiratory flow control, reducing the collapse of the airways during expiration. The performance of FCV during one-lung ventilation (OLV) under intravascular normo- and hypovolaemia is currently unknown. In this explorative study, we hypothesised that OLV with FCV improves PaO(2) and reduces mechanical power compared to volume-controlled ventilation (VCV). Sixteen juvenile pigs were randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) intravascular normovolaemia (n = 8) and (2) intravascular hypovolaemia (n = 8). To mimic inflammation due to major thoracic surgery, a thoracotomy was performed, and 0.5 μg/kg/h lipopolysaccharides from Escherichia coli continuously administered intravenously. Animals were randomly assigned to OLV with one of two sequences (60 min per mode): (1) VCV–FCV or (2) FCV–VCV. Variables of gas exchange, haemodynamics and respiratory signals were collected 20, 40 and 60 min after initiation of OLV with each mechanical ventilation mode. The distribution of ventilation was determined using electrical impedance tomography (EIT). RESULTS: Oxygenation did not differ significantly between modes (P = 0.881). In the normovolaemia group, the corrected expired minute volume (P = 0.022) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were lower during FCV than VCV. The minute volume (P ≤ 0.001), respiratory rate (P ≤ 0.001), total PEEP (P ≤ 0.001), resistance of the respiratory system (P ≤ 0.001), mechanical power (P ≤ 0.001) and resistive mechanical power (P ≤ 0.001) were lower during FCV than VCV irrespective of the volaemia status. The distribution of ventilation did not differ between both ventilation modes (P = 0.103). CONCLUSIONS: In a model of OLV in normo- and hypovolemic pigs, mechanical power was lower during FCV compared to VCV, without significant differences in oxygenation. Furthermore, the efficacy of ventilation was higher during FCV compared to VCV during normovolaemia. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7746431 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77464312020-12-18 Comparative effects of flow vs. volume-controlled one-lung ventilation on gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics in pigs Wittenstein, Jakob Scharffenberg, Martin Ran, Xi Keller, Diana Michler, Pia Tauer, Sebastian Theilen, Raphael Kiss, Thomas Bluth, Thomas Koch, Thea Gama de Abreu, Marcelo Huhle, Robert Intensive Care Med Exp Research BACKGROUND: Flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) allows expiratory flow control, reducing the collapse of the airways during expiration. The performance of FCV during one-lung ventilation (OLV) under intravascular normo- and hypovolaemia is currently unknown. In this explorative study, we hypothesised that OLV with FCV improves PaO(2) and reduces mechanical power compared to volume-controlled ventilation (VCV). Sixteen juvenile pigs were randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) intravascular normovolaemia (n = 8) and (2) intravascular hypovolaemia (n = 8). To mimic inflammation due to major thoracic surgery, a thoracotomy was performed, and 0.5 μg/kg/h lipopolysaccharides from Escherichia coli continuously administered intravenously. Animals were randomly assigned to OLV with one of two sequences (60 min per mode): (1) VCV–FCV or (2) FCV–VCV. Variables of gas exchange, haemodynamics and respiratory signals were collected 20, 40 and 60 min after initiation of OLV with each mechanical ventilation mode. The distribution of ventilation was determined using electrical impedance tomography (EIT). RESULTS: Oxygenation did not differ significantly between modes (P = 0.881). In the normovolaemia group, the corrected expired minute volume (P = 0.022) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were lower during FCV than VCV. The minute volume (P ≤ 0.001), respiratory rate (P ≤ 0.001), total PEEP (P ≤ 0.001), resistance of the respiratory system (P ≤ 0.001), mechanical power (P ≤ 0.001) and resistive mechanical power (P ≤ 0.001) were lower during FCV than VCV irrespective of the volaemia status. The distribution of ventilation did not differ between both ventilation modes (P = 0.103). CONCLUSIONS: In a model of OLV in normo- and hypovolemic pigs, mechanical power was lower during FCV compared to VCV, without significant differences in oxygenation. Furthermore, the efficacy of ventilation was higher during FCV compared to VCV during normovolaemia. Springer International Publishing 2020-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7746431/ /pubmed/33336305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-020-00308-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Wittenstein, Jakob Scharffenberg, Martin Ran, Xi Keller, Diana Michler, Pia Tauer, Sebastian Theilen, Raphael Kiss, Thomas Bluth, Thomas Koch, Thea Gama de Abreu, Marcelo Huhle, Robert Comparative effects of flow vs. volume-controlled one-lung ventilation on gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics in pigs |
title | Comparative effects of flow vs. volume-controlled one-lung ventilation on gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics in pigs |
title_full | Comparative effects of flow vs. volume-controlled one-lung ventilation on gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics in pigs |
title_fullStr | Comparative effects of flow vs. volume-controlled one-lung ventilation on gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics in pigs |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative effects of flow vs. volume-controlled one-lung ventilation on gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics in pigs |
title_short | Comparative effects of flow vs. volume-controlled one-lung ventilation on gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics in pigs |
title_sort | comparative effects of flow vs. volume-controlled one-lung ventilation on gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics in pigs |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7746431/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33336305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-020-00308-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wittensteinjakob comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs AT scharffenbergmartin comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs AT ranxi comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs AT kellerdiana comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs AT michlerpia comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs AT tauersebastian comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs AT theilenraphael comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs AT kissthomas comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs AT bluththomas comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs AT kochthea comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs AT gamadeabreumarcelo comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs AT huhlerobert comparativeeffectsofflowvsvolumecontrolledonelungventilationongasexchangeandrespiratorysystemmechanicsinpigs |