Abstract

A continuous gas flow provided by flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) facilitates accurate dynamic compliance measurement and allows the clinician to individually optimise positive end-expiratory and peak pressure settings accordingly. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of gas exchange and impact on haemodynamics between individualised FCV and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in a porcine model of oleic acid-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Randomised controlled interventional trial conducted on 16 pigs. Animal operating facility at the Medical University Innsbruck. ARDS was induced in lung healthy pigs by intravenous infusion of oleic acid until moderate-to-severe ARDS at a stable Horowitz quotient (PaO 2 FiO 2-1 ) of 80 to 120 over a period of 30 min was obtained. Ventilation was then either performed with individualised FCV ( n = 8) established by compliance-guided pressure titration or PCV ( n = 8) with compliance-guided titration of the positive end-expiratory pressure and peak pressure set to achieve a tidal volume of 6 ml kg -1 over a period of 2 h. Gas exchange parameters were assessed by the PaO 2 FiO 2-1 quotient and CO 2 removal by the PaCO 2 value in relation to required respiratory minute volume. Required catecholamine support for haemodynamic stabilisation was measured. The FCV group showed significantly improved oxygenation [149.2 vs. 110.4, median difference (MD) 38.7 (8.0 to 69.5) PaO 2 FiO 2-1 ; P = 0.027] and CO 2 removal [PaCO 2 7.25 vs. 9.05, MD -1.8 (-2.87 to -0.72) kPa; P = 0.006] at a significantly lower respiratory minute volume [8.4 vs. 11.9, MD -3.6 (-5.6 to -1.5) l min -1 ; P = 0.005] compared with PCV. In addition, in FCV-pigs, haemodynamic stabilisation occurred with a significant reduction of required catecholamine support [norepinephrine 0.26 vs. 0.86, MD -0.61 (-1.12 to -0.09) μg kg -1 min -1 ; P = 0.037] during 2 ventilation hours. In this oleic acid-induced porcine ARDS model, individualised FCV significantly improved gas exchange and haemodynamic stability compared with PCV. Protocol no.: BMBWF-66.011/0105-V/3b/2019).

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.