Lung-protective strategy of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a comparative study between pressure control and volume control

Marwa A. El-Moety, Khaled Ahmed, A. Osman, Randa A. El-Qader
{"title":"Lung-protective strategy of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a comparative study between pressure control and volume control","authors":"Marwa A. El-Moety, Khaled Ahmed, A. Osman, Randa A. El-Qader","doi":"10.4103/JCMRP.JCMRP_35_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) constitutes a major phenotype of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Pressure control (PC) and volume control (VC) modes are used for the management of moderate and severe ARDS. Each mode has its benefits and drawbacks. Aim The aim of this study was to compare lung-protective strategy (LPS) using PC ventilation with LPS using VC ventilation to get the best benefit for those critically ill ARDS patients and to solve the problem of hypoventilation. Patients and methods This prospective, randomized controlled trial was carried out at the respiratory intensive care unit of university hospital during the period from October 2017 to December 2018. The study included 30 patients diagnosed as ARDS according to Berlin definition. Those patients were categorized into two groups: group I is the PC group (15 patients) using the LPS and group II is the VC group (15 patients) using the LPS. Results The mean age was 48.93 ± 9.91 years for the PC group with female predominance (53.3%), while the mean age was 46.11 ± 7.94 for the VC group with male predominance (53.3%). Arterial blood gases showed a significant higher pH and lower PaCO2 in the VC group. Mechanical parameters showed a significant higher VT and VE in the VC group. Weaning and outcome in both groups were successful, while seven of the patients of PC (46.7%) and four of the patients of VC (26.7%) failed extubation and died. Conclusion The authors conclude that both modes are equally effective in improving oxygenation in patients of ARDS, who were ventilated with LPS, while VC achieved better ventilation, higher pH, and lower PCO2 than PC. But it needs strict monitoring of plateau pressure to maintain safety.","PeriodicalId":110854,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Current Medical Research and Practice","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Current Medical Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/JCMRP.JCMRP_35_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) constitutes a major phenotype of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Pressure control (PC) and volume control (VC) modes are used for the management of moderate and severe ARDS. Each mode has its benefits and drawbacks. Aim The aim of this study was to compare lung-protective strategy (LPS) using PC ventilation with LPS using VC ventilation to get the best benefit for those critically ill ARDS patients and to solve the problem of hypoventilation. Patients and methods This prospective, randomized controlled trial was carried out at the respiratory intensive care unit of university hospital during the period from October 2017 to December 2018. The study included 30 patients diagnosed as ARDS according to Berlin definition. Those patients were categorized into two groups: group I is the PC group (15 patients) using the LPS and group II is the VC group (15 patients) using the LPS. Results The mean age was 48.93 ± 9.91 years for the PC group with female predominance (53.3%), while the mean age was 46.11 ± 7.94 for the VC group with male predominance (53.3%). Arterial blood gases showed a significant higher pH and lower PaCO2 in the VC group. Mechanical parameters showed a significant higher VT and VE in the VC group. Weaning and outcome in both groups were successful, while seven of the patients of PC (46.7%) and four of the patients of VC (26.7%) failed extubation and died. Conclusion The authors conclude that both modes are equally effective in improving oxygenation in patients of ARDS, who were ventilated with LPS, while VC achieved better ventilation, higher pH, and lower PCO2 than PC. But it needs strict monitoring of plateau pressure to maintain safety.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急性呼吸窘迫综合征肺保护策略:压力控制与容积控制的比较研究
急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)是急性低氧性呼吸衰竭的主要表型。压力控制(PC)和音量控制(VC)模式用于中重度ARDS的管理。每种模式都有其优点和缺点。目的比较肺保护策略(LPS)应用PC通气与肺保护策略(LPS)应用VC通气对危重ARDS患者的疗效,以解决低通气问题。患者与方法本前瞻性随机对照试验于2017年10月至2018年12月在大学附属医院呼吸重症监护室进行。该研究包括30例根据柏林定义诊断为ARDS的患者。将患者分为两组:I组为PC组(15例),使用LPS; II组为VC组(15例),使用LPS。结果以女性为主的PC组平均年龄为48.93±9.91岁(53.3%),以男性为主的VC组平均年龄为46.11±7.94岁(53.3%)。VC组动脉血气pH值明显升高,PaCO2明显降低。力学参数显示VC组VT和VE明显升高。两组均脱机成功,PC组7例(46.7%),VC组4例(26.7%)拔管失败死亡。结论两种模式对LPS通气的ARDS患者氧合改善效果相同,而VC比PC通气效果更好,pH值更高,PCO2更低。但它需要严格监测平台压力以保持安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparative Study Between the Efficacy of Oral Verapamil and Bisoprolol on Reduction of Intraoperative Bleeding during Endoscopic Sinus Surgery under General Anesthesia Assessment of Cognitive Functions in Bipolar Disorder Patients Assessment of Acne Severity in Adult Female Acne Patients in Relation to BMI CD 11b and CD56 As Prognostic Markers in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Effect of Intrathecal Dexamethasone on Intra-operative Hemodynamics in Elderly Patients Undergoing Urologic Endoscopic Surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1