• 제목/요약/키워드: reduction goal

검색결과 512건 처리시간 0.02초

잡종견 급성폐손상 모델에서 Prone position 시행시 PEEP 수준에 따른 호흡 및 혈류역학적 효과 (The Respiratory and Hemodynamic Effects of Prone Position According to the Level of PEEP in a Dog Acute Lung Injury Model)

  • 임채만;진재용;고윤석;심태선;이상도;김우성;김동순;김원동
    • Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
    • /
    • 제45권1호
    • /
    • pp.140-152
    • /
    • 1998
  • 배 경: 호흡부전의 치료에 있어 환자 체위를 prone position으로 하는 시도는 20년 전부터 보고되어 왔으며 폐산소화 및 심박출량 향상에 효과가 있다는 것이 알려져 있다. Prone position시 폐산소화의 호전은 임상 및 동물 실험에서 단락 감소에 의한 것으로 알려져 있으며 그 중요 기전은 supine position에 비해 prone position때 중력 의존부 폐의 늑막압이 더 작아 폐포 개방압이 줄어들기 때문인 바 저자 등은 prone position이 폐산소화에 미치는 효과는 supine position에서 사용한 PEEP의 폐포 고비 개방압과의 관계에 따라 달라질 것으로 추정하였다. Prone position에서의 심박출량 증가에 대하여는 양압환기시 발생하는 cardiac fossa lifting 현상이 prone position에 의해 완화될 수 있다는 주장이 제기된 바 있어 prone position이 또한 supine position에서 PEEP에 의해 초래된 심박출량 저하를 완화시킬 수 있는지를 잡종견 급성 폐손상 모델을 통해 알아보고자 하였다. 방 법 : 잡종견 7 마리 ($20.0{\pm}3.9$ kg)를 정맥 마취 후 기관내관을 삽관하고 인공호흡기를 Vt 15 ml/kg, f 20/min, I : E=1 : 3, pause 10%, PEEP 0 cm $H_2O$, $F_1O_2$ 1.0으로 설정하였다. 혈압, 분당맥박수, 폐동맥쐐기압, 심박출량 등의 측정과 동맥혈가스분석을 위해 서혜동맥과 폐동맥 천자술을 시행하였다. 대조기에 supine position 및 prone position 30분에 각각 호흡 지표 ($PaO_2/F_1O_2$[P/F], 총호흡기계탄성 [Cst]와 supine position, prone position 5분 및 prone position 30분에 혈류역학적 지표(평균동맥압, 분당 맥박수, 심박출량, 박출용적)을 측정하고 섭씨 38도의 생리식염수 (30~50 ml/kg)를 기관내관을 통하여 주입하여 급성 폐손상을 유도한 뒤 constant flow 법에 의해 inflection point(Pflex)를 측정하였다. 급성 폐손상에서의 supine position과 prone position실험은 Pflex보다 2 cm $H_2O$ 낮은 PEEP(Low PEEP)과 2 cm $H_2O$ 높은 PEEP (Optimal PEEP)에서 순차적으로 시행하고 각각 통일 시간대에 상기 지표들을 측정하였으며 Optimal PEEP 실험 마지막에 다시 supin position으로 체위를 바꾸고 5분 뒤 혈류역학적 지표들을 측정하였다. 결 과: 1. Prone position 시행시 Low PEEP 및 Optimal PEEP에서의 호흡 효과의 차이 Low PEEP하에서 P/F 비는 supine position에서 $195{\pm}112$ mm Hg, prone position 30분에서 $400{\pm}33$ mm Hg였고 (p<0.001) Optimal PEEP하에서 P/F 비는 supine position에서 $466{\pm}63$ mm Hg, prone position 30분에서 $499{\pm}63$ mm Hg였다 (p=0.016). Prone position에 의한 P/F 비 싱승량은 Low PEEP하에서 $205{\pm}90$ mm Hg로 Optimal PEEP($33{\pm}33$ mm Hg) 하에서 보다 유의하게 높았다(각각 p<0.05). 2. Prone position의 혈류역학적 효과 Low PEEP하에서 심박출량은 supine position($3.0{\pm}0.7$ L/min) 과 비교하여 prone position 5분 $3.3{\pm}0.7$ L/min(p=0.0180)로 증가하였고 prone position 30분 $3.7{\pm}0.8$ L/min(p=0.0630)로 차이가 없었다. 분당맥박수는 각각 $141{\pm}22\;min^{-1}$, $141{\pm}22\;min^{-1}$(p=0.8658) 및 $176{\pm}28\;min^{-1}$(p=0.0280)이었고 폐동맥쐐기압은 차이가 없었다. Optimal PEEP하에서 평균동맥압은 각각 $87{\pm}19$ mm Hg, $107{\pm}18$ mm Hg(p=0.0180) 및 $108{\pm}16$ mm Hg(p=0.0180), 심박출량은 각각 $2.4{\pm}0.5$ L/min, $3.3{\pm}0.6$ L/min(p=0.0180) 및 $3.6{\pm}0.7$ L/min(p=0.0180), 그리고 박출용적은 각각 $14{\pm}2$ml, $20{\pm}2$ ml(p=0.0180) 및 $21{\pm}2$ ml(p=0.0180)였다. 분당맥박수는 체위 변경에 따른 차이가 없었고 폐동맥쐐기압은 각각 $10.1{\pm}2.4$ mm Hg, $9.1{\pm}2.7$ mm Hg(p=0.0180) 및 $9.0{\pm}3.1$ mm Hg(p=0.0679) 이었다. Optimal PEEP하 prone position에서 다시 supine position으로 체위를 바꾸고 5분 후 평균동맥압은 $92{\pm}23$ mm Hg, 심박출량은 $2.4{\pm}0.5$ L/min, 그리고 박출용적은 $14{\pm}1$ ml로 모두 감소하였다(모두 p<0.05). 결 론 : 잡종견 급성폐손상 모델에서 prone position은 비교적 낮은 수준 PEEP의 폐산소화 호전 효과를 중대시켰고, 비교적 놓은 수준 PEEP에 의한 심박출량 저하를 완화시켰다. 이러한 결과들은 심박출량을 유지하면서 폐산소화를 호전시키고자 하는 ARDS 환자에서의 기계환기의 목표를 달성하는데 있어 prone position이 supine position보다 유리하다는 것을 시사한다.

  • PDF

한국전쟁의 교훈과 대비 -병력수(兵力數) 및 부대수(部隊數)를 중심으로- (The lesson From Korean War)

  • 윤일영
    • 안보군사학연구
    • /
    • 통권8호
    • /
    • pp.49-168
    • /
    • 2010
  • Just before the Korean War, the total number of the North Korean troops was 198,380, while that of the ROK(Republic of Korea) army troops 105,752. That is, the total number of the ROK army troops at that time was 53.3% of the total number of the North Korean army. As of December 2008, the total number of the North Korean troops is estimated to be 1,190,000, while that of the ROK troops is 655,000, so the ROK army maintains 55.04% of the total number of the North Korean troops. If the ROK army continues to reduce its troops according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the total number of its troops will be 517,000 m 2020. If North Korea maintains the current status(l,190,000 troops), the number of the ROK troops will be 43.4% of the North Korean army. In terms of units, just before the Korean War, the number of the ROK army divisions and regiments was 80% and 44.8% of North Korean army. As of December 2008, North Korea maintains 86 divisions and 69 regiments. Compared to the North Korean army, the ROK army maintains 46 Divisions (53.4% of North Korean army) and 15 regiments (21.3% of North Korean army). If the ROK army continue to reduce the military units according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of ROK army divisions will be 28(13 Active Division, 4 Mobilization Divisions and 11 Local Reserve Divisions), while that of the North Korean army will be 86 in 2020. In that case, the number of divisions of the ROK army will be 32.5% of North Korean army. During the Korean war, North Korea suddenly invaded the Republic of Korea and occupied its capital 3 days after the war began. At that time, the ROK army maintained 80% of army divisions, compared to the North Korean army. The lesson to be learned from this is that, if the ROK army is forced to disperse its divisions because of the simultaneous invasion of North Korea and attack of guerrillas in home front areas, the Republic of Korea can be in a serious military danger, even though it maintains 80% of military divisions of North Korea. If the ROK army promotes the plans in [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of military units of the ROK army will be 32.5% of that of the North Korean army. This ratio is 2.4 times lower than that of the time when the Korean war began, and in this case, 90% of total military power should be placed in the DMZ area. If 90% of military power is placed in the DMZ area, few troops will be left for the defense of home front. In addition, if the ROK army continues to reduce the troops, it can allow North Korea to have asymmetrical superiority in military force and it will eventually exert negative influence on the stability and peace of the Korean peninsular. On the other hand, it should be reminded that, during the Korean War, the Republic of Korea was attacked by North Korea, though it kept 53.3% of troops, compared to North Korea. It should also be reminded that, as of 2008, the ROK army is defending its territory with the troops 55.04% of North Korea. Moreover, the national defense is assisted by 25,120 troops of the US Forces in Korea. In case the total number of the ROK troops falls below 43.4% of the North Korean army, it may cause social unrest about the national security and may lead North Korea's misjudgement. Besides, according to Lanchester strategy, the party with weaker military power (60% compared to the party with stronger military power) has the 4.1% of winning possibility. Therefore, if we consider the fact that the total number of the ROK army troops is 55.04% of that of the North Korean army, the winning possibility of the ROK army is not higher than 4.1%. If the total number of ROK troops is reduced to 43.4% of that of North Korea, the winning possibility will be lower and the military operations will be in critically difficult situation. [Military Reform Plan 2020] rums at the reduction of troops and units of the ground forces under the policy of 'select few'. However, the problem is that the financial support to achieve this goal is not secured. Therefore, the promotion of [Military Reform Plan 2020] may cause the weakening of military defence power in 2020. Some advanced countries such as Japan, UK, Germany, and France have promoted the policy of 'select few'. However, what is to be noted is that the national security situation of those countries is much different from that of Korea. With the collapse of the Soviet Unions and European communist countries, the military threat of those European advanced countries has almost disappeared. In addition, the threats those advanced countries are facing are not wars in national level, but terrorism in international level. To cope with the threats like terrorism, large scaled army trops would not be necessary. So those advanced European countries can promote the policy of 'select few'. In line with this, those European countries put their focuses on the development of military sections that deal with non-military operations and protection from unspecified enemies. That is, those countries are promoting the policy of 'select few', because they found that the policy is suitable for their national security environment. Moreover, since they are pursuing common interest under the European Union(EU) and they can form an allied force under NATO, it is natural that they are pursing the 'select few' policy. At present, NATO maintains the larger number of troops(2,446,000) than Russia(l,027,000) to prepare for the potential threat of Russia. The situation of japan is also much different from that of Korea. As a country composed of islands, its prime military focus is put on the maritime defense. Accordingly, the development of ground force is given secondary focus. The japanese government promotes the policy to develop technology-concentrated small size navy and air-forces, instead of maintaining large-scaled ground force. In addition, because of the 'Peace Constitution' that was enacted just after the end of World War II, japan cannot maintain troops more than 240,000. With the limited number of troops (240,000), japan has no choice but to promote the policy of 'select few'. However, the situation of Korea is much different from the situations of those countries. The Republic of Korea is facing the threat of the North Korean Army that aims at keeping a large-scale military force. In addition, the countries surrounding Korea are also super powers containing strong military forces. Therefore, to cope with the actual threat of present and unspecified threat of future, the importance of maintaining a carefully calculated large-scale military force cannot be denied. Furthermore, when considering the fact that Korea is in a peninsular, the Republic of Korea must take it into consideration the tradition of continental countries' to maintain large-scale military powers. Since the Korean War, the ROK army has developed the technology-force combined military system, maintaining proper number of troops and units and pursuing 'select few' policy at the same time. This has been promoted with the consideration of military situation in the Koran peninsular and the cooperation of ROK-US combined forces. This kind of unique military system that cannot be found in other countries can be said to be an insightful one for the preparation for the actual threat of North Korea and the conflicts between continental countries and maritime countries. In addition, this kind of technology-force combined military system has enabled us to keep peace in Korea. Therefore, it would be desirable to maintain this technology-force combined military system until the reunification of the Korean peninsular. Furthermore, it is to be pointed out that blindly following the 'select few' policy of advanced countries is not a good option, because it is ignoring the military strategic situation of the Korean peninsular. If the Republic of Korea pursues the reduction of troops and units radically without consideration of the threat of North Korea and surrounding countries, it could be a significant strategic mistake. In addition, the ROK army should keep an eye on the fact the European advanced countries and Japan that are not facing direct military threats are spending more defense expenditures than Korea. If the ROK army reduces military power without proper alternatives, it would exert a negative effect on the stable economic development of Korea and peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsular. Therefore, the desirable option would be to focus on the development of quality of forces, maintaining proper size and number of troops and units under the technology-force combined military system. The tableau above shows that the advanced countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, and Austria spend more defense expenditure per person than the Republic of Korea, although they do not face actual military threats, and that they keep achieving better economic progress than the countries that spend less defense expenditure. Therefore, it would be necessary to adopt the merits of the defense systems of those advanced countries. As we have examined, it would be desirable to maintain the current size and number of troops and units, to promote 'select few' policy with increased defense expenditure, and to strengthen the technology-force combined military system. On the basis of firm national security, the Republic of Korea can develop efficient policies for reunification and prosperity, and jump into the status of advanced countries. Therefore, the plans to reduce troops and units in [Military Reform Plan 2020] should be reexamined. If it is difficult for the ROK army to maintain its size of 655,000 troops because of low birth rate, the plans to establish the prompt mobilization force or to adopt drafting system should be considered for the maintenance of proper number of troops and units. From now on, the Republic of Korean government should develop plans to keep peace as well as to prepare unexpected changes in the Korean peninsular. For the achievement of these missions, some options can be considered. The first one is to maintain the same size of military troops and units as North Korea. The second one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea in terms of military force index. The third one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea, with the combination of the prompt mobilization force and the troops in active service under the system of technology-force combined military system. At present, it would be not possible for the ROK army to maintain such a large-size military force as North Korea (1,190,000 troops and 86 units). So it would be rational to maintain almost the same level of military force as North Korea with the combination of the troops on the active list and the prompt mobilization forces. In other words, with the combination of the troops in active service (60%) and the prompt mobilization force (40%), the ROK army should develop the strategies to harmonize technology and forces. The Korean government should also be prepared for the strategic flexibility of USFK, the possibility of American policy change about the location of foreign army, radical unexpected changes in North Korea, the emergence of potential threat, surrounding countries' demand for Korean force for the maintenance of regional stability, and demand for international cooperation against terrorism. For this, it is necessary to develop new approaches toward the proper number and size of troops and units. For instance, to prepare for radical unexpected political or military changes in North Korea, the Republic of Korea should have plans to protect a large number of refugees, to control arms and people, to maintain social security, and to keep orders in North Korea. From the experiences of other countries, it is estimated that 115,000 to 230,000 troops, plus ten thousands of police are required to stabilize the North Korean society, in the case radical unexpected military or political change happens in North Korea. In addition, if the Republic of Korea should perform the release of hostages, control of mass destruction weapons, and suppress the internal wars in North Korea, it should send 460,000 troops to North Korea. Moreover, if the Republic of Korea wants to stop the attack of North Korea and flow of refugees in DMZ area, at least 600,000 troops would be required. In sum, even if the ROK army maintains 600,000 troops, it may need additional 460,000 troops to prepare for unexpected radical changes in North Korea. For this, it is necessary to establish the prompt mobilization force whose size and number are almost the same as the troops in active service. In case the ROK army keeps 650,000 troops, the proper number of the prompt mobilization force would be 460,000 to 500,000.

  • PDF