기계 호흡 중 불안정한 호흡역학을 보인 환자에서 압력조절용적조정양식(Pressure-regulated Volume Control Mode)의 효용

The Usefulness of Pressure-regulated Volume Control(PRVC) Mode in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Unstable Respiratory Mechanics

연구배경 : 일정한 분시 유지하면서도 기도압의 하나인 압력조절용적조정양식(PRVC)의 입상적 유용성에 대한 보고는 없었다. 본 연구는 호흡역학이 불안정한 환자에서 PRVC 양식이 원래의 개발 목적대로 압력 조절 양식에 비해 일호흡량을 일정하게 유지하면서 용적조절양식에 비해 기도압을 낮게 유지하는지를 관찰하였다. 연구방법 : 기계 호흡 중이며 활력징후의 안정을 보이는 환자 중 15분간 관찰 결과 VCV에서 최고 홉기압의 변이계수가 10이상으로 최고 홉기압의 변화가 심하거나, PCV에서 상시 호흡량의 변이계수가 10이상으로 일 호흡량의 변화가 심한 환자 8 명(남 : 녀=6 : 2, $56{\pm}26$세)를 대상으로 하여 일호흡량을 비슷한 유지하도록 VCV, PCV, PRVC 양식을 설정한 후 각 환기양식에서 15분간 일호흡량과 최고 흡기압을 관찰하였다. 결 과 : 1) 평균 일호흡량은 VCV에서 $431{\pm}102ml$, PCV에서 $417{\pm}99ml$, PRVC에서 $414{\pm}97ml$였으며 각 환기양식 간에 차이가 없었다. 2) 상시 호흡량의 변이계수는 VCV에서 $5.2{\pm}3.9%$, PCV에서 $15.2{\pm}7.5%$ PRVC에서 $19.3{\pm}10.0%$로 PCV와 PRVC에서 상시 호흡량의 변화가 심하였다(p<0.01). 3) 평균 최고 홉기압은 VCV에서 $31.0{\pm}6.9cm$ $H_2O$, PCV에서 $26.0{\pm}6.5cm$ $H_2O$, PRVC에서 $27.0{\pm}6.4cm$ $H_2O$로 PCV와 PRVC의 최고 흡기압의 VCV의 경우보다 낮게 유지되었다(p<0.01). 4) 최고 홉기압의 변이계수는 VCV에서 $13.9{\pm}3.7%$, PCV에서 $4.9{\pm}2.6%$, PRVC에서 $12.2{\pm}7.0%$로 VCV와 PRVC에서 최고 홉기압의 변동이 심하였다(p<0.01). 결 론 : PRVC 양식은 호흡역학이 불안정한 환자에서는 VCV에 비해 평균 최고 홉기압은 낮게 유지하였으나 최고 흡기압의 변동이 심하였고, PCV에 비해 상시 호흡량의 변동이 심하여 이중조절환기양식 본래의 목적을 달성하기 어려울 것으로 사료된다.

Background : Since the late 1960s, mechanical ventilation has been accomplished primarily using volume controlled ventilation(VCV). While VCV allows a set tidal volume to be guaranteed, VCV could bring about excessive airway pressures that may be lead to barotrauma in the patients with acute lung injury. With the increment of knowledge related to ventilator-induced lung injury, pressure controlled ventilation(PCV) has been frequently applied to these patients. But, PCV has a disadvantage of variable tidal volume delivery as pulmonary impedance changes. Since the concept of combining the positive attributes of VCV and PCV(dual control ventilation, DCV) was described firstly in 1992, a few DCV modes were introduced. Pressure-regulated volume control(PRVC) mode, a kind of DCV, is pressure-limited, time-cycled ventilation that uses tidal volume as a feedback control for continuously adjusting the pressure limit However, no clinical studies were published on the efficacy of PRVC until now. 'This investigation studied the efficacy of PRVC in the patients with unstable respiratory mechanics. Methods : The subjects were 8 mechanically ventilated patients(M : F=6 : 2, $56{\pm}26$ years) who showed unstable respiratory mechanics, which was defined by the coefficients of variation of peak inspiratory pressure for 15 minutes greater than 10% under VCV, or the coefficients of variation of tidal volume greater than 10% under PCV. The study was consisited of 3 modes application with VCV, PCV and PRVC for 15 minutes by random order. To obtain same tidal volume, inspiratory pressure setting was adjusted in PCV. Respiratory parameters were measured by pulmonary monitor(CP-100 pulmonary monitor, Bicore, Irvine, CA, USA). Results : 1) Mean tidal volumes($V_T$) in each mode were not different(VCV, $431{\pm}102ml$ ; PCV, $417{\pm}99ml$ ; PRVC, $414{\pm}97ml$) 2) The coefficient of variation(CV) of $V_T$ were $5.2{\pm}3.9%$ in VCV, $15.2{\pm}7.5%$ in PCV and $19.3{\pm}10.0%$ in PRVC. The CV of $V_T$ in PCV and PRVC were significantly greater than that in VCV(p<0.01). 3) Mean peak inspiratory pressure(PIP) in VCV($31.0{\pm}6.9cm$ $H_2O$) was higher than PIP in PCV($26.0{\pm}6.5cm$ $H_2O$) or PRVC($27.0{\pm}6.4cm$ $H_2O$)(p<0.05). 4) The CV of PIP were $13.9{\pm}3.7%$ in VCV, $4.9{\pm}2.6%$ in PVC and $12.2{\pm}7.0%$ in PRVC. The CV of PIP in VCV and PRVC were greater than that in PCV(p<0.01). Conclusions : Because of wide fluctuations of VT and PIP, PRVC mode did not seem to have advantages compared to VCV or PCV in the patients with unstable respiratory mechanics.