Open-lung protective ventilation with pressure control ventilation, high-frequency oscillation, and intratracheal pulmonary ventilation results in similar gas exchange, hemodynamics, and lung mechanics.

Abstract

Pressure control ventilation (PCV), high-frequency oscillation (HFO), and intratracheal pulmonary ventilation (ITPV) may all be used to provide lung protective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome, but the specific approach that is optimal remains controversial. Saline lavage was used to produce acute respiratory distress syndrome in 21 sheep randomly assigned to receive PCV, HFO, or ITPV as follows: positive end-expiratory pressure (PCV and ITPV) and mean airway pressure (HFO) were set in a pressure-decreasing manner after lung recruitment that achieved a ratio of Pao2/Fio2 > 400 mmHg. Respiratory rates were 30 breaths/min, 120 breaths/min, and 8 Hz, respectively, for PCV, ITPV, and HFO. Eucapnia was targeted with peak carinal pressure of no more than 35 cm H2O. Animals were then ventilated for 4 h. There were no differences among groups in gas exchange, lung mechanics, or hemodynamics. Tidal volume (PCV, 8.9 +/- 2.1 ml/kg; ITPV, 2.7 +/- 0.8 ml/kg; HFO, approximately 2.0 ml/kg) and peak carinal pressure (PCV, 30.6 +/- 2.6 cm H2O; ITPV, 22.3 +/- 4.8 cm H2O; HFO, approximately 24.3 cm H2O) were higher in PCV. Pilot histologic data showed greater interstitial hemorrhage and alveolar septal expansion in PCV than in HFO or ITPV. These data indicate that HFO, ITPV, and PCV when applied with an open-lung protective ventilatory strategy results in the same gas exchange, lung mechanics, and hemodynamic response, but pilot data indicate that lung injury may be greater with PCV.