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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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