scholarly journals Differential Effects of Endotracheal Suctioning on Gas Exchanges in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure under Pressure-Controlled and Volume-Controlled Ventilation

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-Wei Liu ◽  
Yan Jin ◽  
Tao Ma ◽  
Bo Qu ◽  
Zhi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Gas Exchange ◽  
Respiratory Mechanics ◽  
Initial Level ◽  
Lung Compliance ◽  
Respiratory System Compliance ◽  
Endotracheal Suctioning ◽  
Gas Exchanges ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled ◽  
Pressure Controlled

This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of open endotracheal suctioning on gas exchange and respiratory mechanics in ARF patients under the modes of PCV or VCV. Ninety-six ARF patients were treated with open endotracheal suctioning and their variations in respiratory mechanics and gas exchange after the suctions were compared. Under PCV mode, compared with the initial level of tidal volume (VT), ARF patients showed 30.0% and 27.8% decrease at 1 min and 10 min, respectively. Furthermore, the initial respiratory system compliance (Crs) decreased by 29.6% and 28.5% at 1 min and 10 min, respectively. Under VCV mode, compared with the initial level, 38.6% and 37.5% increase in peak airway pressure (PAP) were found at 1 min and 10 min, respectively. Under PCV mode, the initial PaO2increased by 6.4% and 10.2 % at 3 min and 10 min, respectively, while 18.9% and 30.6% increase of the initial PaO2were observed under VCV mode. Summarily, endotracheal suctioning may impair gas exchange and decrease lung compliance in ARF patients receiving mechanical ventilation under both PCV and VCV modes, but endotracheal suctioning effects on gas exchange were more severe and longer-lasting under PCV mode than VCV.

scholarly journals Effects on Lung Gas Volume, Respiratory Mechanics and Gas Exchange of a Closed-Circuit Suctioning System during Volume- and Pressure-Controlled Ventilation in ARDS Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (23) ◽  
pp. 5657
Author(s):  
Davide Chiumello ◽  
Luca Bolgiaghi ◽  
Paolo Formenti ◽  
Tommaso Pozzi ◽  
Manuela Lucenteforte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gas Exchange ◽  
Respiratory Mechanics ◽  
Pressure Control ◽  
Closed Circuit ◽  
Volume Control ◽  
Endotracheal Suctioning ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Pressure Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Gas Volume ◽  
Pressure Controlled

Mechanically ventilated patients periodically require endotracheal suctioning. There are conflicting data regarding the loss of lung gas volume caused by the application of a negative pressure by closed-circuit suctioning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of suctioning performed by a closed-circuit system in ARDS patients during volume- or pressure-controlled ventilation. In this prospective crossover-design study, 18 ARDS patients were ventilated under volume and pressure control applied in random order. Gas exchange, respiratory mechanics and EIT-derived end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) before the suctioning manoeuvre and after 5, 15 and 30 min were recorded. The tidal volume and respiratory rate were similar in both ventilation modes; in volume control, the EELV decreased by 31 ± 23 mL, 5 min after the suctioning, but it remained similar after 15 and 30 min; the oxygenation, PaCO2 and respiratory system elastance did not change. In the pressure control, 5 min after suctioning, EELV decreased by 35 (26–46) mL, the PaO2/FiO2 did not change, while PaCO2 increased by 5 and 30 min after suctioning (45 (40–51) vs. 48 (43–52) and 47 (42–54) mmHg, respectively). Our results suggest minimal clinical advantages when a closed system is used in volume-controlled compared to pressure-controlled ventilation.

scholarly journals Different Inspiratory Flow Waveform during Volume-Controlled Ventilation in ARDS Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (20) ◽  
pp. 4756
Author(s):  
Davide Chiumello ◽  
Andrea Meli ◽  
Tommaso Pozzi ◽  
Manuela Lucenteforte ◽  
Paolo Simili ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Mechanics ◽  
Major Effect ◽  
Inspiratory Flow ◽  
Flow Waveform ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Flow Waveforms ◽  
Volume Controlled ◽  
Pressure Controlled

The most used types of mechanical ventilation are volume- and pressure-controlled ventilation, respectively characterized by a square and a decelerating flow waveform. Nowadays, the clinical utility of different inspiratory flow waveforms remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of four different inspiratory flow waveforms in ARDS patients. Twenty-eight ARDS patients (PaO2/FiO2 182 ± 40 and PEEP 11.3 ± 2.5 cmH2O) were ventilated in volume-controlled ventilation with four inspiratory flow waveforms: square (SQ), decelerating (DE), sinusoidal (SIN), and trunk descending (TDE). After 30 min in each condition, partitioned respiratory mechanics and gas exchange were collected. The inspiratory peak flow was higher in the DE waveform compared to the other three waveforms, and in SIN compared to the SQ and TDE waveforms, respectively. The mean inspiratory flow was higher in the DE and SIN waveforms compared with TDE and SQ. The inspiratory peak pressure was higher in the SIN and SQ compared to the TDE waveform. Partitioned elastance was similar in the four groups; mechanical power was lower in the TDE waveform, while PaCO2 in DE. No major effect on oxygenation was found. The explored flow waveforms did not provide relevant changes in oxygenation and respiratory mechanics.

scholarly journals Combined Ventilation Of Two Subjects With A Single Mechanical Ventilator Using A New Medical Device: An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Lugones ◽  
Matias Ramos ◽  
Maria Fernanda Biancolini ◽  
Roberto Eduardo Orofino Giambastiani
Keyword(s):  
Tidal Volume ◽  
Lung Compliance ◽  
Positive End Expiratory Pressure ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Pressure Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Ventilation Modes ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Volume Controlled ◽  
Pressure Controlled

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV2 pandemic has created a sudden lack of ventilators. DuplicAR® is a novel device that allows simultaneous and independent ventilation of two subjects with a single ventilator. The aims of this study are: a) to determine the efficacy of DuplicAR® to independently regulate the peak and positive-end expiratory pressures in each subject, both under pressure-controlled ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation, and b) to determine the ventilation mode in which DuplicAR® presents the best performance and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two test lungs are connected to a single ventilator using DuplicAR®. Three experimental stages are established: 1) two identical subjects, 2) two subjects with the same weight but different lung compliance, and 3) two subjects with different weight and lung compliance. In each stage, the test lungs are ventilated in two ventilation modes. The positive-end expiratory pressure requirements are increased successively in one of the subjects. The goal is to achieve a tidal volume of 7 ml/kg for each subject in all different stages through manipulation of the ventilator and the DuplicAR® controllers. RESULTS: DuplicAR® allows adequate ventilation of two subjects with different weight and/or lung compliance and/or PEEP requirements. This is achieved by adjusting the total tidal volume for both subjects (in volume-controlled ventilation) or the highest peak pressure needed (in pressure-controlled ventilation) along with the basal positive-end expiratory pressure on the ventilator, and simultaneously manipulating the DuplicAR® controllers to decrease the tidal volume or the peak pressure in the subject that needs less and/or to increase the positive-end expiratory pressure in the subject that needs more. While ventilatory goals can be achieved in any of the ventilation modes, DuplicAR® performs better in pressure-controlled ventilation, as changes experienced in the variables of one subject do not modify the other one. CONCLUSIONS: DuplicAR® is an effective tool to manage the peak inspiratory pressure and the positive-end expiratory pressure independently in two subjects connected to a single ventilator. The driving pressure can be adjusted to meet the requirements of subjects with different weight and lung compliance. Pressure-controlled ventilation has advantages over volume-controlled ventilation and is therefore the recommended ventilation mode.

scholarly journals Comparison of Volume-Guaranteed or -Targeted, Pressure-Controlled Ventilation with Volume-Controlled Ventilation during Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1276
Author(s):  
Volker Schick ◽  
Fabian Dusse ◽  
Ronny Eckardt ◽  
Steffen Kerkhoff ◽  
Simone Commotio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lung Ventilation ◽  
One Lung Ventilation ◽  
Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Pressure Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled Ventilation ◽  
Volume Controlled ◽  
Pressure Controlled

For perioperative mechanical ventilation under general anesthesia, modern respirators aim at combining the benefits of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in modes typically named “volume-guaranteed” or “volume-targeted” pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV-VG). This systematic review and meta-analysis tested the hypothesis that PCV-VG modes of ventilation could be beneficial in terms of improved airway pressures (Ppeak, Pplateau, Pmean), dynamic compliance (Cdyn), or arterial blood gases (PaO2, PaCO2) in adults undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Three major medical electronic databases were searched with predefined search strategies and publications were systematically evaluated according to the Cochrane Review Methods. Continuous variables were tested for mean differences using the inverse variance method and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Based on the assumption that intervention effects across studies were not identical, a random effects model was chosen. Assessment for heterogeneity was performed with the χ2 test and the I2 statistic. As primary endpoints, Ppeak, Pplateau, Pmean, Cdyn, PaO2, and PaCO2 were evaluated. Of the 725 publications identified, 17 finally met eligibility criteria, with a total of 929 patients recruited. Under supine two-lung ventilation, PCV-VG resulted in significantly reduced Ppeak (15 studies) and Pplateau (9 studies) as well as higher Cdyn (9 studies), compared with VCV [random effects models; Ppeak: CI −3.26 to −1.47; p < 0.001; I2 = 82%; Pplateau: −3.12 to −0.12; p = 0.03; I2 = 90%; Cdyn: CI 3.42 to 8.65; p < 0.001; I2 = 90%]. For one-lung ventilation (8 studies), PCV-VG allowed for significantly lower Ppeak and higher PaO2 compared with VCV. In Trendelenburg position (5 studies), this effect was significant for Ppeak only. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that volume-targeting, pressure-controlled ventilation modes may provide benefits with respect to the improved airway dynamics in two- and one-lung ventilation, and improved oxygenation in one-lung ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document