Comparison of Different Tidal Volumes for Ventilation in Patients with an Acute Traumatic Cervical Spine Injury.

Abstract

There is scant literature comparing high tidal volume ventilation (HTV) over low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation in acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI). The aim of this prospective randomized controlled parallel-group, single-blinded study was to compare the effect of two different tidal volumes (12-15 mL/kg and 6-8 mL/kg) in CSCI on days to achieve ventilator-free breathing (VFB), PaO2/FIO2 ratio, the incidence of complications, requirement of vasopressor drugs, total duration of hospital stay, and mortality. We enrolled patients with acute high traumatic CSCI admitted to the neurotrauma intensive care unit within 24 h of injury, requiring mechanical ventilation. Participants were randomized to receive either HTV, 12-15 mL/kg (group H) or LTV, 6-8 mL/kg (group L) tidal volume ventilation. A total of 56 patients, 28 in each group were analyzed. Patient demographics and injury severity were comparable between the groups. VFB was achieved in 23 and 19 patients in groups H and L, respectively. The median number of days required to achieve VFB was 3 (2, 56) and 8 (2, 50) days, P = 0.33; PaO2: FIO2 ratio was 364.0 ± 64 and 321.0 ± 67.0, P = 0.01; the incidence of atelectasis was 25% and 46%, P = 0.16, respectively, in group H and group L. The hemodynamic parameters and the vasopressor requirement were comparable in both groups. There was no barotrauma. The duration of hospital stay (P = 0.2) and mortality (P = 0.2) was comparable in both groups. There was no significant difference in days to achieve ventilator-free breathing with HTV (12-15 mL/kg) ventilation compared to LTV (6-8 mL/kg) ventilation in acute CSCI. The PaO2:FiO2 ratio was higher with the use of 12-15 mL/kg. No difference in mortality and duration of hospital stay was seen in either group.