• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.500-512
• /
• 2000

Background : To evaluate the efficacy of two methods of obtaining lung recruitment to reduce ventilator-induced lung injury(VILI). Methods : Fifteen New-Zealand white rabbits were ventilated in the pressure-controlled mode while maintaining constant tidal volume(10 ml/kg) and fixed respiration rate. Lung injury was induced by repeated saline lavage (PaO2<100 mmHg), and the pressure-volume curve was drawn to obtain Pflex. The animals were then randomly assigned to three groups and ventilated for 4 hours. In the control group(n=5), positive end-expiratory pressure(PEEP) less than that of Pflex by 3 mmHg was applied throughout the study. In the recruitment maneuver(RM) group(n=5), RM(CPAP of 22.5 mmHg, for 45 seconds) was performed every 15 minutes in addition to PEEP level less than Pflex by 3 mmHg This phrase is unclear. In the Pflex group, PEEP of Pflex was given without RM. Gas exchange, lung mechanics, and hemodynamics parameters as well as pathology were examined. Results : 1) Both the control and RM groups showed decreasing tendency in PaO2 with time. There was significantly decreased PaO2 at 4 hr compared to Ihr(p<0.05). But in the Pflex group, PaO2 did not decrease with time(p<0.05 vs other groups at 3, 4 hr). PaCO2 did not show significant difference among the three groups. 2) There was no significant difference in static compliance and plateau pressure. Mean blood pressure and heart rate also did not show any significant difference among the three groups. 3) The pathologic exam showed significantly less neutrophil infiltration in the Pflex group than in the control group(p<0.05). There was borderline significant difference in hyaline membrane score among the groups (p= 0.0532). Conclusion : Although recruitment maneuver of the injured lung may be important in decreasing VILI, it alone may not be sufficient to minimize VILI.

• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.44 no.6
• /
• pp.1318-1325
• /
• 1997

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.