Search

Introduction This study aims at comparing the very short-term effects of conventional and noisy (variable) pressure support ventilation (PSV) in mechanically ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Methods 13 mechanically ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were enrolled in this monocentric, randomized crossover study. Patients were mechanically ventilated with conventional and noisy PSV, for one hour each, in random sequence. Pressure support was titrated to reach tidal volumes ≈8 mL/kg in both modes. The level of positive end-expiratory pressure and fraction of inspired oxygen were kept unchanged in both modes. The coefficient of variation of pressure support during noisy PSV was set at 30%. Gas exchange, hemodynamics, lung functional parameters, distribution of ventilation by electrical impedance tomography, breathing patterns and patient-ventilator synchrony were analyzed. Results Noisy PSV was not associated with any adverse event, and was well tolerated by all patients. Gas exchange, hemodynamics, respiratory mechanics and spatial distribution of ventilation did not differ significantly between conventional and noisy PSV. Noisy PSV increased the variability of tidal volume (24.4 ± 7.8% vs. 13.7 ± 9.1%, P < 0.05) and was associated with a reduced number of asynchrony events compared to conventional PSV (5 [0-15]/30 min vs. 10 [1-37]/30 min, P < 0.05). Conclusions In the very short term, noisy PSV proved safe and feasible in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Compared to conventional PSV, noisy PSV increased the variability of tidal volumes, and was associated with improved patient-ventilator synchrony, at comparable levels of gas exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recruitment maneuvers and the application of high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure combined with lung protective mechanical ventilation strategies have been proposed to improve pulmonary function in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, the optimal way to achieve and maintain alveolar recruitment is still under debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Mechanical ventilation with high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH), but the role of PEEP in minimizing lung injury remains controversial. We hypothesized that in the presence of acute lung injury (ALI) with IAH: 1) higher PEEP levels improve pulmonary morphofunction and minimize lung injury; and 2) the biological effects of higher PEEP are more effective in extrapulmonary (exp) than pulmonary (p) ALI.Methods: In 48 adult male Wistar rats, ALIp and ALIexp were induced by Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide intratracheally and intraperitoneally, respectively. After 24 hours, animals were anesthetized and mechanically ventilated (tidal volume of 6 mL/kg). IAH (15 mmHg) was induced and rats randomly assigned to PEEP of 5 (PEEP5), 7 (PEEP7) or 10 (PEEP10) cmH2O for 1 hour.Results: In both ALIp and ALIexp, higher PEEP levels improved oxygenation. PEEP10 increased alveolar hyperinflation and epithelial cell damage compared to PEEP5, independent of ALI etiology. In ALIp, PEEP7 and PEEP10 increased lung elastance compared to PEEP5 (4.3 ± 0.7 and 4.3 ± 0.9 versus 3.1 ± 0.3 cmH2O/mL, respectively, P <0.01), without changes in alveolar collapse, interleukin-6, caspase-3, type III procollagen, receptor for advanced glycation end-products, and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 expressions. Moreover, PEEP10 increased diaphragmatic injury compared to PEEP5. In ALIexp, PEEP7 decreased lung elastance and alveolar collapse compared to PEEP5 (2.3 ± 0.5 versus 3.6 ± 0.7 cmH2O/mL, P <0.02, and 27.2 (24.7 to 36.8) versus 44.2 (39.7 to 56.9)%, P <0.05, respectively), while PEEP7 and PEEP10 increased interleukin-6 and type III procollagen expressions, as well as type II epithelial cell damage compared to PEEP5.Conclusions: In the current models of ALI with IAH, in contrast to our primary hypothesis, higher PEEP is more effective in ALIp than ALIexp as demonstrated by the activation of biological markers. Therefore, higher PEEP should be used cautiously in the presence of IAH and ALI, mainly in ALIexp. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Biphasic positive airway pressure (BIVENT) is a partial support mode that employs pressure-controlled, time-cycled ventilation set at two levels of continuous positive airway pressure with unrestricted spontaneous breathing. BIVENT can modulate inspiratory effort by modifying the frequency of controlled breaths. Nevertheless, the optimal amount of inspiratory effort to improve respiratory function while minimizing ventilator-associated lung injury during partial ventilatory assistance has not been determined. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the effects of partial ventilatory support depend on acute lung injury (ALI) etiology. This study aimed to investigate the impact of spontaneous and time-cycled control breaths during BIVENT on the lung and diaphragm in experimental pulmonary (p) and extrapulmonary (exp) ALI.Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled experimental study of 60 adult male Wistar rats. Mild ALI was induced by Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide either intratracheally (ALI(p)) or intraperitoneally (ALI(exp)). After 24 hours, animals were anesthetized and further randomized as follows: (1) pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) with tidal volume (V(t)) = 6 ml/kg, respiratory rate = 100 breaths/min, PEEP = 5 cmH2O, and inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio (I:E) = 1:2; or (2) BIVENT with three spontaneous and time-cycled control breath modes (100, 75, and 50 breaths/min). BIVENT was set with two levels of CPAP (P(high) = 10 cmH2O and P(low) = 5 cmH2O). Inspiratory time was kept constant (T(high) = 0.3 s).Results: BIVENT was associated with reduced markers of inflammation, apoptosis, fibrogenesis, and epithelial and endothelial cell damage in lung tissue in both ALI models when compared to PCV. The inspiratory effort during spontaneous breaths increased during BIVENT-50 in both ALI models. In ALI(p), alveolar collapse was higher in BIVENT-100 than PCV, but decreased during BIVENT-50, and diaphragmatic injury was lower during BIVENT-50 compared to PCV and BIVENT-100. In ALI(exp), alveolar collapse during BIVENT-100 and BIVENT-75 was comparable to PCV, while decreasing with BIVENT-50, and diaphragmatic injury increased during BIVENT-50.Conclusions: In mild ALI, BIVENT had a lower biological impact on lung tissue compared to PCV. In contrast, the response of atelectasis and diaphragmatic injury to BIVENT differed according to the rate of spontaneous/controlled breaths and ALI etiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]