Mechanical ventilation in septic shock.

IF 2.1
Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen, Bruno Martins Tomazini, Luciano Cesar Pontes Azevedo
{"title":"Mechanical ventilation in septic shock.","authors":"Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen,&nbsp;Bruno Martins Tomazini,&nbsp;Luciano Cesar Pontes Azevedo","doi":"10.1097/ACO.0000000000000955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The aim of this study was to review the most recent literature on mechanical ventilation strategies in patients with septic shock.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Indirect clinical trial evidence has refined the use of neuromuscular blocking agents, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment manoeuvres in septic shock patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Weaning strategies and devices have also been recently evaluated. The role of lung protective ventilation in patients with healthy lungs, while recognized, still needs to be further refined. The possible detrimental effects of spontaneous breathing in patients who develop acute respiratory distress syndrome is increasingly recognized, but clinical trial evidence is still lacking to confirm this hypothesis. A new concept of lung and diaphragm protective is emerging in the critical care literature, but its application will need a complex intervention implementation approach to allow adequate scrutiny of this concept and uptake by clinicians.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Many advances in the management of the mechanically ventilated patient with sepsis and septic shock have occurred in recent years, but clinical trial evidence is still necessary to translate new hypotheses to the bedside and find the right balance between benefits and risks of these new strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":520600,"journal":{"name":"Current opinion in anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"107-112"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current opinion in anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000955","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Purpose of review: The aim of this study was to review the most recent literature on mechanical ventilation strategies in patients with septic shock.

Recent findings: Indirect clinical trial evidence has refined the use of neuromuscular blocking agents, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment manoeuvres in septic shock patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Weaning strategies and devices have also been recently evaluated. The role of lung protective ventilation in patients with healthy lungs, while recognized, still needs to be further refined. The possible detrimental effects of spontaneous breathing in patients who develop acute respiratory distress syndrome is increasingly recognized, but clinical trial evidence is still lacking to confirm this hypothesis. A new concept of lung and diaphragm protective is emerging in the critical care literature, but its application will need a complex intervention implementation approach to allow adequate scrutiny of this concept and uptake by clinicians.

Summary: Many advances in the management of the mechanically ventilated patient with sepsis and septic shock have occurred in recent years, but clinical trial evidence is still necessary to translate new hypotheses to the bedside and find the right balance between benefits and risks of these new strategies.

感染性休克的机械通气。
回顾目的:本研究的目的是回顾最近关于感染性休克患者机械通气策略的文献。近期发现:间接临床试验证据已经完善了神经肌肉阻滞剂、呼气末正压(PEEP)和招募手法在感染性休克合并急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者中的应用。最近也对断奶策略和设备进行了评估。肺保护通气在肺健康患者中的作用虽已得到认可,但仍需进一步完善。自发性呼吸对急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者可能产生的有害影响已日益被认识到,但仍缺乏临床试验证据来证实这一假设。肺和隔膜保护的新概念正在重症监护文献中出现,但其应用将需要一个复杂的干预实施方法,以允许充分审查这一概念和临床医生的吸收。摘要:近年来,在脓毒症和脓毒性休克机械通气患者的管理方面取得了许多进展,但仍需要临床试验证据来将新的假设转化为床边,并在这些新策略的获益和风险之间找到适当的平衡。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信