4.6 Article

Mechanical Power and Development of Ventilator-induced Lung Injury

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 124, 期 5, 页码 1100-1108

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001056

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Clinical Research Award (Bruxelles, Belgium)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The ventilator works mechanically on the lung parenchyma. The authors set out to obtain the proof of concept that ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) depends on the mechanical power applied to the lung. Methods: Mechanical power was defined as the function of transpulmonary pressure, tidal volume (TV), and respiratory rate. Three piglets were ventilated with a mechanical power known to be lethal (TV, 38 ml/kg; plateau pressure, 27 cm H2O; and respiratory rate, 15 breaths/min). Other groups (three piglets each) were ventilated with the same TV per kilogram and transpulmonary pressure but at the respiratory rates of 12, 9, 6, and 3 breaths/min. The authors identified a mechanical power threshold for VILI and did nine additional experiments at the respiratory rate of 35 breaths/min and mechanical power below (TV 11 ml/kg) and above (TV 22 ml/kg) the threshold. Results: In the 15 experiments to detect the threshold for VILI, up to a mechanical power of approximately 12 J/min (respiratory rate, 9 breaths/min), the computed tomography scans showed mostly isolated densities, whereas at the mechanical power above approximately 12 J/min, all piglets developed whole-lung edema. In the nine confirmatory experiments, the five piglets ventilated above the power threshold developed VILI, but the four piglets ventilated below did not. By grouping all 24 piglets, the authors found a significant relationship between the mechanical power applied to the lung and the increase in lung weight (r(2) = 0.41, P = 0.001) and lung elastance (r(2) = 0.33, P < 0.01) and decrease in Pao(2)/Fio(2) (r(2) = 0.40, P < 0.001) at the end of the study. Conclusion: In piglets, VILI develops if a mechanical power threshold is exceeded.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据