[RUSSIAN NATIONAL EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY "RUVENT": THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL LUNG VENTILATION IN THE INTENSIVE THERAPY IN CHILDREN].

UNLABELLED: Purpose of this part of the "RuVent" research is to study the real use of the various modes and parameters of prolonged respiratory support in children in Russia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 104 children from 29 ICUs (28 in Russian Federation, 1 in Ukraine) under the age of 15 years with ALV duration more than 12 hours in the period from February 7 to 11, 2011. The collection of information performed through online forms. RESULTS: Total lethality was 20.7% (18 of 87 patients). The main reasons for prolonged respiratory support in children were the pathology of the respiratory system: acute respiratory distress syndrome (21.2%), community-acquired pneumonia (9.5%), sepsis (8.2%), and congenital disorders of the central nervous system (8.2%) and cardiac arrest (8.2%). According to the study "RuVent" doctors mostly prefer managed modes of respiratory support (SIMV 41.3%, A/C 28.8%, BIPAP 12.5%). Frequency of non-invasive respiratory support use amounted to 1%. Real respiratory volume based on ideal body weight calculation, averaged for boys 9.2 (7.3; 11.2) ml/kg (n = 54), for girls--8.7 (7.1; 10.1) m/kg (n = 38). PEEP median amounted to 4 mbar Tracheostomy was performed in 12 children out of 104 (11.5%), predominantly classic (n = 11), puncture dilated tracheostomy was performed in 1 child. The median of the tracheostomy installation in children was 24.5 days. The duration of respiratory support in children was 11 days (5; 25) (n = 43). The incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in children was 27.9% (12 of 43 cases). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the Russian national epidemiological study of the use of mechanical ventilation in the Intensive care unit ("RuVent") showed comparable data with real international clinical practice. The researchers noted significant differences during prolonged mechanical ventilation in children compared with adult patients.

[Significance of static pressure-volume loop for differential diagnostics and optimization of respiratory support in parenchimal respiratory failure].

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To determine significance of static pressure-volume loop (PV loop) for differential diagnostics of parenchymal respiratory failure, setting of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruit ability of the lung. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 76 patients (52 males) with parenchymal respiratory failure were included in the study (oxygenation index (PaO2/ FiO2) < 250 torr infiltrates on chest X-ray or CT-scan of the lungs, no data on left ventricular failure). We plot static PV loop by low flow technique in range of 0 to 40 mbar, fixing lower inflection point (LIP), linear compliance (Clin), upper inflection point (UIP), expiratory inflection point (EIP), compliance of linear deflation limb (C defl), hysteresis (Hyst) and volume of PEEP-induced recruitment of the lung (V(peep)). Then we plot another static PV loop with sustained inflation of 40 mbar for 30 seconds, fixing changes in lung volume at 40 mbar. After 10 minutes of sustained inflation we measured changes of oxygenation index. For 69 patient we performed lung CT-scan and defined diffuse (acute respiratory distress syndrome) or local lung injury (pneumonia, atelectasis). RESULTS: LIP value can differentiate diffuse and local lung injury. LIP more than 10 mbar corresponds to diffuse lung injury on CT scan (sensitivity 76%, specificity 85%, AUROC 0.81). LIP cannot predict PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment and changes of PaO2/FiO2 after sustained inflation maneuver (p > 0.05). Empirically set PEEP (by maximum PaO2/FiO2) was much higher than LIP (p < 0.0001), but LIP correlates with empirically set PEEP in diffuse lung injury (rho = 0.642, p = 0.003). Clin cannot differentiate diffuse from local lung injury (p > 0.05), but predicts PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment during static PV loop plotting (rho = 0.493, p < 0.0001). We did not find any statistically significant values of UIP and EIP for differential diagnosis, setting of PEEP or recruit ability of the lung. Hysteresis value (defined as volume difference at 20 mbar between deflation and inflation limbs) cannot predict influence of PEEP setting and sustained inflation maneuver on PaO2/FiO2 changes and recruit ability of the lung (p > 0.05). After static PV loop plotting combined with sustained inflation maneuver recruited volume of the lungs was 350 (250-450) ml. We didn't find significant differences between recruit ability of the diffuse and locally injured lungs (p > 0.05). Recruitment volume has no correlations with all points and segments of static PV loop. CONCLUSIONS: Static PV loop has limited prognostic value for differential diagnostics of diffuse or local lung injury and brings potential harm for setting PEEP according to LIP. LIP more than 10 mbar can predict diffuse lung injury. Clin can predict volume of PEEP-induced recruitment. In diffuse lung injury LIP correlates with empirically set PEEP.