ABSTRACT
Using an animal model of acute respiratory failure (ARF), we evaluated two treatments: conventional mechanical pulmonary ventilation (MV) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with extracorporeal removal of CO2 by an artificial membrane lung. We developed a model of "mild" ARF and a model of "severe" ARF after ventilating healthy sheep at a peak inspiratory pressure of 50 cm H2O for various lengths of time. Sheep from either injury models were randomly assigned to one of the above treatment groups. All 16 sheep from the model with "severe" ARF died, with progressive deterioration in pulmonary function and multiorgan failure irrespective of the treatment. Of 11 sheep from the model with "mild" ARF treated by MV, only three survived, whereas all 11 sheep from the model with "mild" ARF treated with CPAP and extracorporeal removal of CO2 responded well, and nine sheep ultimately recovered. We conclude that CPAP with extracorporeal removal of CO2 provided a better environment for the recovery in our model with "mild" ARF than the conventional arrangement centered on MV alone. Our studies also suggest that lung injury can progress (i.e., model with "severe" ARF) to where neither of the two treatments can succeed.
Subject(s)
Carbon Dioxide , Membranes, Artificial , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Acute Disease , Animals , Artificial Organs , Evaluation Studies as Topic , Perfusion/instrumentation , Random Allocation , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/pathology , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , SheepSubject(s)
Catheterization, Swan-Ganz , Hemofiltration/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Animals , Hemofiltration/adverse effects , Lung/pathology , Pleural Effusion/etiology , Positive-Pressure Respiration/adverse effects , Pulmonary Atelectasis/etiology , Random Allocation , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/pathology , SheepABSTRACT
A clinical study was carried out to assess the antiinflammatory effectiveness and related properties of this drug. It was performed double-blind in 40 adult patients (ASA I, and II) undergoing major otorhinolaryngological surgical procedures with tracheal intubation. The patients received benzydamine at random (n = 20), or a similar solution without the active substance (n = 20). The following parameters were considered: physical examination, sensations referred from patient, cytologic examination, glottographic examination, and spectrographic examination. The results suggest that benzydamine applied locally at a concentration of 0.3% has therapeutic efficacy without local or systemic side-effects.
