Lung Protective Ventilation in Brain-Injured Patients: Low Tidal Volumes or Airway Pressure Release Ventilation?

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Ravi Garg
{"title":"Lung Protective Ventilation in Brain-Injured Patients: Low Tidal Volumes or Airway Pressure Release Ventilation?","authors":"Ravi Garg","doi":"10.1055/s-0040-1716800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The optimal mode of mechanical ventilation for lung protection is unknown in brain-injured patients as this population is excluded from large studies of lung protective mechanical ventilation. Survey results suggest that low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation is the favored mode likely due to the success of LTV in other patient populations. Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is an alternative mode of mechanical ventilation that may offer several benefits over LTV in this patient population. APRV is an inverse-ratio, pressure-controlled mode of mechanical ventilation that utilizes a higher mean airway pressure compared with LTV. This narrative review compares both modes of mechanical ventilation and their consequences in brain-injured patients. Fears that APRV may raise intracranial pressure by virtue of a higher mean airway pressure are not substantiated by the available evidence. Primarily by virtue of spontaneous breathing, APRV often results in improvement in systemic hemodynamics and thereby improvement in cerebral perfusion pressure. Compared with LTV, sedation requirements are lessened by APRV allowing for more accurate neuromonitoring. APRV also uses an open loop system supporting clearance of secretions throughout the respiratory cycle. Additionally, APRV avoids hypercapnic acidosis and oxygen toxicity that may be especially deleterious to the injured brain. Although high-level evidence is lacking that one mode of mechanical ventilation is superior to another in brain-injured patients, several aspects of APRV make it an appealing mode for select brain-injured patients.","PeriodicalId":16574,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care","volume":"08 1","pages":"118 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0040-1716800","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716800","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The optimal mode of mechanical ventilation for lung protection is unknown in brain-injured patients as this population is excluded from large studies of lung protective mechanical ventilation. Survey results suggest that low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation is the favored mode likely due to the success of LTV in other patient populations. Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is an alternative mode of mechanical ventilation that may offer several benefits over LTV in this patient population. APRV is an inverse-ratio, pressure-controlled mode of mechanical ventilation that utilizes a higher mean airway pressure compared with LTV. This narrative review compares both modes of mechanical ventilation and their consequences in brain-injured patients. Fears that APRV may raise intracranial pressure by virtue of a higher mean airway pressure are not substantiated by the available evidence. Primarily by virtue of spontaneous breathing, APRV often results in improvement in systemic hemodynamics and thereby improvement in cerebral perfusion pressure. Compared with LTV, sedation requirements are lessened by APRV allowing for more accurate neuromonitoring. APRV also uses an open loop system supporting clearance of secretions throughout the respiratory cycle. Additionally, APRV avoids hypercapnic acidosis and oxygen toxicity that may be especially deleterious to the injured brain. Although high-level evidence is lacking that one mode of mechanical ventilation is superior to another in brain-injured patients, several aspects of APRV make it an appealing mode for select brain-injured patients.
脑损伤患者肺保护性通气:低潮气量还是气道压力释放通气?
摘要脑损伤患者肺保护的最佳机械通气模式尚不清楚,因为这一人群被排除在肺保护性机械通气的大型研究之外。调查结果表明,由于LTV在其他患者群体中的成功,低潮气量(LTV)通气是最受欢迎的模式。气道压力释放通气(APRV)是一种替代的机械通气模式,在该患者群体中,它可能比LTV有几个好处。APRV是一种反比、压力控制的机械通气模式,与LTV相比,它利用了更高的平均气道压力。这篇叙述性综述比较了两种机械通气模式及其对脑损伤患者的影响。关于APRV可能由于较高的平均气道压力而升高颅内压的担忧没有得到现有证据的证实。APRV主要通过自主呼吸改善全身血流动力学,从而改善脑灌注压。与LTV相比,APRV降低了镇静要求,从而实现了更准确的神经监测。APRV还使用开环系统,支持在整个呼吸周期中清除分泌物。此外,APRV可避免高碳酸血症性酸中毒和氧中毒,这可能对受伤的大脑特别有害。尽管缺乏高水平的证据表明,在脑损伤患者中,一种机械通气模式优于另一种,但APRV的几个方面使其成为一种对选定脑损伤患者有吸引力的模式。
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
Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care
Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信