MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций
Медицинская библиотека · Critical care medicine · 1987

Traumatic respiratory insufficiency: comparison of conventional mechanical ventilation to high-frequency positive pressure with low-rate ventilation.

Barzilay E, Lev A, Ibrahim M, Lesmes C

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

Eleven patients suffering severe traumatic respiratory insufficiency were mechanically ventilated using a new system which combined high-frequency positive-pressure ventilation (HFPPV) with low-rate conventional mechanical ventilation (LRCMV). Ten similar patients were ventilated by conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) with PEEP. HFPPV patients were fully conscious and cooperative during ventilation and did not need sedatives or muscle relaxants. Arterial oxygenation was significantly (p less than .005) better in HFPPV than CMV patients (89.91 +/- 10.24 vs. 78.43 +/- 11.13 torr, respectively), and pulmonary shunt was also better in the HFPPV group (13.1 +/- 4.7% vs. 20.4 +/- 6.4%, p less than .01). Moreover, inspired oxygen concentrations were lower (PaO2/FIO2 197.8 +/- 51.3 in the HFPPV group vs. 130 +/- 46.6 in the CMV group, p less than .005) and the time required for mechanical ventilation was shorter (4.2 +/- 0.91 vs. 6.1 +/- 0.8 days, p less than .1). All HFPPV patients immediately began breathing spontaneously when they were disconnected from the ventilator. We suggest this method as a better ventilatory mode for patients suffering traumatic respiratory insufficiency.

Для цитирования: Barzilay E, Lev A, Ibrahim M, Lesmes C. Traumatic respiratory insufficiency: comparison of conventional mechanical ventilation to high-frequency positive pressure with low-rate ventilation.. Critical care medicine. 1987.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.