半自主通气在猪出血和肺损伤模型中提供肺保护性通气。

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Ellen R Becker, Adam D Price, Rebecca M Schuster, Chelsea Caskey, Brian Harvey, Maia P Smith, Richard D Branson, Michael D Goodman, Thomas C Blakeman
{"title":"半自主通气在猪出血和肺损伤模型中提供肺保护性通气。","authors":"Ellen R Becker, Adam D Price, Rebecca M Schuster, Chelsea Caskey, Brian Harvey, Maia P Smith, Richard D Branson, Michael D Goodman, Thomas C Blakeman","doi":"10.1097/TA.0000000000004610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanical ventilation requires frequent reassessment from providers to ensure delivery of lung protective ventilation. However, in resource-limited settings, the time and attention lung protective ventilation requires are not always feasible. This study aimed to compare a physiologic closed-loop control (PCLC) ventilator capable of self-adjusting based on patient parameters against standard of care (SOC) ventilatory management in a porcine model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study compared SOC (n = 15) with PCLC (n = 15) for three porcine injury models: hemorrhage, lung injury, and hemorrhage with lung injury. Hemorrhage animals were progressively bled to three mean arterial pressures (60, 50, and then 40 mm Hg) and monitored for 60 minutes after each bleed. Lung injury used saline surfactant washout to a targeted PO2/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio of <250 mm Hg. Hemorrhage with lung injury combined surfactant washout followed by hemorrhage. Study end points were defined by the percent of time spent within target values: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network concordance, oxygenation (>96% with FiO2 0.21% or oxygen saturation [SpO2] <92% on FiO2 1.00%), tidal volume (4 ≤ VT/kg ≤ 10 mL/kg), and plateau pressure (≤30 cm H2O).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Standard of care animals spent a lower percentage of time within targeted SpO2 range compared with PCLC (49% ± 25% vs. 68% ± 24% of time, p = 0.04) across all injury models, while all other parameters were comparable. In the hemorrhage group, the percentage of time within targeted SpO2 was also lower in SOC compared with PCLC (p = 0.01), while the remaining parameters, and all parameters within lung injury alone and hemorrhage with lung injury were otherwise equivalent (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Physiologic closed-loop control performed equally to or better than SOC during both hemorrhage and lung injury. Physiologic closed-loop control has the potential to provide intensive care unit-level ventilator management in resource-limited circumstances, both in civilian and military operations.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Study; Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":17453,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Semiautonomous ventilation in a porcine hemorrhage and lung injury model provides lung protective ventilation.\",\"authors\":\"Ellen R Becker, Adam D Price, Rebecca M Schuster, Chelsea Caskey, Brian Harvey, Maia P Smith, Richard D Branson, Michael D Goodman, Thomas C Blakeman\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/TA.0000000000004610\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanical ventilation requires frequent reassessment from providers to ensure delivery of lung protective ventilation. However, in resource-limited settings, the time and attention lung protective ventilation requires are not always feasible. This study aimed to compare a physiologic closed-loop control (PCLC) ventilator capable of self-adjusting based on patient parameters against standard of care (SOC) ventilatory management in a porcine model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study compared SOC (n = 15) with PCLC (n = 15) for three porcine injury models: hemorrhage, lung injury, and hemorrhage with lung injury. Hemorrhage animals were progressively bled to three mean arterial pressures (60, 50, and then 40 mm Hg) and monitored for 60 minutes after each bleed. Lung injury used saline surfactant washout to a targeted PO2/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio of <250 mm Hg. Hemorrhage with lung injury combined surfactant washout followed by hemorrhage. Study end points were defined by the percent of time spent within target values: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network concordance, oxygenation (>96% with FiO2 0.21% or oxygen saturation [SpO2] <92% on FiO2 1.00%), tidal volume (4 ≤ VT/kg ≤ 10 mL/kg), and plateau pressure (≤30 cm H2O).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Standard of care animals spent a lower percentage of time within targeted SpO2 range compared with PCLC (49% ± 25% vs. 68% ± 24% of time, p = 0.04) across all injury models, while all other parameters were comparable. In the hemorrhage group, the percentage of time within targeted SpO2 was also lower in SOC compared with PCLC (p = 0.01), while the remaining parameters, and all parameters within lung injury alone and hemorrhage with lung injury were otherwise equivalent (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Physiologic closed-loop control performed equally to or better than SOC during both hemorrhage and lung injury. Physiologic closed-loop control has the potential to provide intensive care unit-level ventilator management in resource-limited circumstances, both in civilian and military operations.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Study; Level III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17453,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004610\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004610","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:机械通气需要经常重新评估提供者,以确保肺保护性通气的交付。然而,在资源有限的情况下,肺保护性通气所需的时间和注意力并不总是可行的。本研究旨在比较猪模型中能够基于患者参数进行自我调节的生理性闭环控制(PCLC)呼吸机与标准护理(SOC)呼吸机管理。方法:比较猪出血、肺损伤和肺损伤合并出血3种损伤模型的SOC (n = 15)和PCLC (n = 15)。出血动物逐渐出血至3个平均动脉压(60,50,40mmhg),并在每次出血后监测60分钟。结果:在所有损伤模型中,标准护理组动物在目标SpO2范围内的时间百分比低于PCLC(49%±25% vs 68%±24%,p = 0.04),而所有其他参数均具有可比性。在出血组中,SOC与PCLC相比,靶SpO2内的时间百分比也较低(p = 0.01),其余参数以及肺损伤单独与出血合并肺损伤内的所有参数相当(p > 0.05)。结论:在出血和肺损伤时,生理闭环控制的效果等于或优于SOC。生理闭环控制有可能在资源有限的情况下,在民用和军事行动中提供重症监护病房级别的呼吸机管理。证据水平:治疗性研究;第三层次。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Semiautonomous ventilation in a porcine hemorrhage and lung injury model provides lung protective ventilation.

Background: Mechanical ventilation requires frequent reassessment from providers to ensure delivery of lung protective ventilation. However, in resource-limited settings, the time and attention lung protective ventilation requires are not always feasible. This study aimed to compare a physiologic closed-loop control (PCLC) ventilator capable of self-adjusting based on patient parameters against standard of care (SOC) ventilatory management in a porcine model.

Methods: The study compared SOC (n = 15) with PCLC (n = 15) for three porcine injury models: hemorrhage, lung injury, and hemorrhage with lung injury. Hemorrhage animals were progressively bled to three mean arterial pressures (60, 50, and then 40 mm Hg) and monitored for 60 minutes after each bleed. Lung injury used saline surfactant washout to a targeted PO2/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio of <250 mm Hg. Hemorrhage with lung injury combined surfactant washout followed by hemorrhage. Study end points were defined by the percent of time spent within target values: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network concordance, oxygenation (>96% with FiO2 0.21% or oxygen saturation [SpO2] <92% on FiO2 1.00%), tidal volume (4 ≤ VT/kg ≤ 10 mL/kg), and plateau pressure (≤30 cm H2O).

Results: Standard of care animals spent a lower percentage of time within targeted SpO2 range compared with PCLC (49% ± 25% vs. 68% ± 24% of time, p = 0.04) across all injury models, while all other parameters were comparable. In the hemorrhage group, the percentage of time within targeted SpO2 was also lower in SOC compared with PCLC (p = 0.01), while the remaining parameters, and all parameters within lung injury alone and hemorrhage with lung injury were otherwise equivalent (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Physiologic closed-loop control performed equally to or better than SOC during both hemorrhage and lung injury. Physiologic closed-loop control has the potential to provide intensive care unit-level ventilator management in resource-limited circumstances, both in civilian and military operations.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Study; Level III.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
11.80%
发文量
637
审稿时长
2.7 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery® is designed to provide the scientific basis to optimize care of the severely injured and critically ill surgical patient. Thus, the Journal has a high priority for basic and translation research to fulfill this objectives. Additionally, the Journal is enthusiastic to publish randomized prospective clinical studies to establish care predicated on a mechanistic foundation. Finally, the Journal is seeking systematic reviews, guidelines and algorithms that incorporate the best evidence available.
×
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