Journal of critical care · 2020
Esophageal balloon calibration during Sigh: A physiologic, randomized, cross-over study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Cammarota Gianmaria, Santangelo Erminio, Lauro Gianluigi, Verdina Federico, Boniolo Ester, De Vita Nello, Tarquini Riccardo, Spinelli Elena, Garofalo Eugenio, Bruni Andrea, Zanoni Marta, Messina Antonio, Pesenti Antonio, Corte Francesco Della, Navalesi Paolo, Vaschetto Rosanna, Mauri Tommaso
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Optimal esophageal balloon filling volume (Vbest) depends on the intrathoracic pressure. During Sigh breath delivered by the ventilator machine, esophageal balloon is surrounded by elevated intrathoracic pressure that might require higher filling volume for accurate measure of tidal changes in esophageal pressure (Pes). The primary aim of our investigation was to evaluate and compare Vbest during volume controlled and pressure support breaths vs. Sigh breath.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty adult patients requiring invasive volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure were enrolled. After the insertion of a naso-gastric catheter equipped with 10 ml esophageal balloon, each patient underwent three 30-min trials as follows: VCV, pressure support ventilation (PSV), and PSV + Sigh. Sigh was added to PSV as 35 cmH2O pressure-controlled breath over 4 s, once per minute. PSV and PSV + Sigh were randomly applied and, at the end of each step, esophageal balloon calibration was performed.
RESULTS: Vbest was higher for Sigh breath (4.5 [3.0-6.8] ml) compared to VCV (1.5 [1.0-2.9] ml, P = 0.0004) and PSV tidal breath (1.0 [0.5-2.4] ml, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: During Sigh breath, applying a calibrated approach for Pes assessment, a higher Vbest was required compared to VCV and PSV tidal breath.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty adult patients requiring invasive volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure were enrolled. After the insertion of a naso-gastric catheter equipped with 10 ml esophageal balloon, each patient underwent three 30-min trials as follows: VCV, pressure support ventilation (PSV), and PSV + Sigh. Sigh was added to PSV as 35 cmH2O pressure-controlled breath over 4 s, once per minute. PSV and PSV + Sigh were randomly applied and, at the end of each step, esophageal balloon calibration was performed.
RESULTS: Vbest was higher for Sigh breath (4.5 [3.0-6.8] ml) compared to VCV (1.5 [1.0-2.9] ml, P = 0.0004) and PSV tidal breath (1.0 [0.5-2.4] ml, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: During Sigh breath, applying a calibrated approach for Pes assessment, a higher Vbest was required compared to VCV and PSV tidal breath.