Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Respir Care ; 69(4): 449-462, 2024 Mar 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38538014

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In recent years, mechanical power (MP) has emerged as an important concept that can significantly impact outcomes from mechanical ventilation. Several individual components of ventilatory support such as tidal volume (VT), breathing frequency, and PEEP have been shown to contribute to the extent of MP delivered from a mechanical ventilator to patients in respiratory distress/failure. The aim of this study was to identify which common individual setting of mechanical ventilation is more efficient in maintaining safe and protective levels of MP using different modes of ventilation in simulated subjects with ARDS. METHODS: We used an interactive mathematical model of ventilator output during volume control ventilation (VCV) with either constant inspiratory flow (VCV-CF) or descending ramp inspiratory flow, as well as pressure control ventilation (PCV). MP values were determined for simulated subjects with mild, moderate, and severe ARDS; and whenever MP > 17 J/min, VT, breathing frequency, or PEEP was manipulated independently to bring back MP to ≤ 17 J/min. Finally, the optimum VT-breathing frequency combinations for MP = 17 J/min were determined with all 3 modes of ventilation. RESULTS: VCV-CF always resulted in the lowest MPs while PCV resulted in highest MPs. Reductions in VT were the most efficient for maintaining safer and protective MP. At targeted MPs of 17 J/min and maximized minute ventilation, the optimum VT-breathing frequency combinations were 250-350 mL for VT and 32-35 breaths/min for breathing frequency in mild ARDS, 200-350 mL for VT and 34-40 breaths/min for breathing frequency in moderate ARDS, and 200-300 mL for VT and 37-45 breaths/min for breathing frequency for severe ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: VCV-CF resulted in the lowest MP. VT was the most efficient for maintaining safe and protective MP in a mathematical simulation of subjects with ARDS. In the context of maintaining low and safe MPs, ventilatory strategies with lower-than-normal VT and higher-than-normal breathing frequency will need to be implemented in patients with ARDS.


Assuntos
Respiração Artificial , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório , Humanos , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Ventiladores Mecânicos , Pulmão , Volume de Ventilação Pulmonar , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/terapia
4.
Intensive Care Med Exp ; 6(1): 30, 2018 Aug 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30136011

RESUMO

Recent research results provide new incentives to recognize and prevent ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and create targeting schemes for new modes of mechanical ventilation. For example, minimization of breathing power, inspiratory power, and inspiratory pressure are the underlying goals of optimum targeting schemes used in the modes called adaptive support ventilation (ASV), adaptive ventilation mode 2 (AVM2), and MID-frequency ventilation (MFV). We describe the mathematical models underlying these targeting schemes and present theoretical analyses for minimizing tidal volume, tidal pressure (also known as driving pressure), or tidal power as functions of ventilatory frequency. To go beyond theoretical equations, these targeting schemes were compared in terms of expected tidal volumes using different patient models. Results indicate that at the same ventilation efficiency (same PaCO2 level), we expect tidal volume dosage in the range of 7.4 mL/kg (for ASV), 6.2 mL/kg (for AVM2), and 6.7 mL/kg (for MFV) for adult ARDS simulation. For a neonatal RDS model, we expect 5.5 mL/kg (for ASV), 4.6 mL/kg (for AVM2), and 4.5 (for MFV).

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...