Cargando…

Effects of pressure- and volume-controlled ventilation on the work of breathing in cats using a cuffed endotracheal tube

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Mechanical ventilation is essential for supporting patients’ respiratory function when they are under general anesthesia. For cats with limited lung capacity, the different effects of volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) on respiratory fun...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Niyatiwatchanchai, Nutawan, Thengchaisri, Naris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Veterinary World 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8613800/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34840479
http://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.2568-2573
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND AIM: Mechanical ventilation is essential for supporting patients’ respiratory function when they are under general anesthesia. For cats with limited lung capacity, the different effects of volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) on respiratory function remain elusive. The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of VCV and PCV in cats under general anesthesia using a cuffed endotracheal tube (ETT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve healthy cats were randomly allocated to either a VCV or PCV group. Five tidal volumes (6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mL/kg) were randomly applied to assess the efficacy of VCV, and respiratory rates were adjusted to achieve a minute ventilation of 100 mL/kg/min. Peak inspiratory pressures (4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 mmHg) were randomly applied to assess the efficacy of PCV, and respiratory rates were adjusted to achieve a minute ventilation of 100 mL/kg/min. Blood pressure, gas leakages, and end-tidal CO(2) were recorded from 60 trials for airway control during the use of VCV or PCV. Data were compared using Fisher’s exact test with a significance level of p<0.05. RESULTS: Leakages did not differ between VCV (1/60 events) and PCV (0/60 events; p=0.500). Hypercapnia was identified when using VCV (6/60 events) less frequently than when using PCV (7/60 events; p=0.762), but did not reach statistical significance. Hypotension (mean arterial blood pressure <60 mmHg) occurred less frequently with VCV (0/60 events) than with PCV (9/60 events; p=0.003). Moreover, VCV provided a significantly lower work of breathing (151.10±65.40 cmH(2)O mL) compared with PCV (187.84±89.72 cmH(2)O mL; p<0.05). CONCLUSION: VCV in cats using a cuffed ETT causes less hypotension than PCV. It should be noted that VCV provides a more stable tidal volume compared with PCV, resulting in a more stable minute volume. Nonetheless, VCV should not be used in patients with an airway obstruction because higher peak airway pressure may occur and lead to lung injury.