Intratracheal pulmonary ventilation versus conventional mechanical ventilation: continuous carinal pressure monitoring at low and high flows and frequencies.

Abstract

We continuously measured proximal and carinal pressures at low and high flow rates and frequencies during conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) and intratracheal pulmonary ventilation (ITPV), using an artificial lung. The proximal peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), carinal PIP, proximal positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), and carinal PEEP, or negative end expiratory pressure (NEEP), were measured during simulated CMV and ITPV. Two levels of frequency (30 and 90 per min) and two gas flow rates (3 and 6 L/min) were examined, in both dry and humid states (four combinations of gas flow and frequency at each state). The gas flow and inspiratory time were held constant throughout the CMV and ITPV trials. Humidification of the ventilatory circuit during ITPV prevented the accurate measurement of carinal pressures. This problem was solved by introducing a continuous "bias flow" of 11 ml/min into the pressure monitoring line. A combination of low gas flow and low frequency with CMV showed no significant differences between the proximal and carinal PIP, as well as the proximal and carinal PEEP. The same combination with ITPV, however, resulted in a significantly lower carinal PIP and PEEP, compared to proximal PIP and PEEP. Carinal PIP and PEEP during ITPV were also significantly lower than those observed during CMV with a low flow and low frequency rates. During both CMV and ITPV, using a combination of a high flow rate with a high breathing frequency, carinal PIPs were significantly lower than proximal PIPs. ITPV, however, generated much larger differences between proximal and carinal PIPs than the CMV. A significant NEEP was generated at the carinal level during ITPV with high flow rates, both with high and low frequencies. The NEEP did not occur with a low gas flow, in combination with either a low frequency or a high frequency. The "bias flow" had no significant effect on carinal pressures. In conclusion, ITPV, compared with CMV, generates a significantly lower carinal PIP, but it may also generate carinal NEEP. For safety reasons, therefore, it is essential to monitor carinal pressures continuously in patients treated with ITPV.