English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Flow-controlled ventilation is a novel ventilation method which allows to individualize ventilation according to dynamic lung mechanic limits based on direct tracheal pressure measurement at a stable constant gas flow during inspiration and expiration. The aim of this porcine study was to compare individualized flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) and current guideline-conform pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in long-term ventilation.    Methods  Anesthetized pigs were ventilated with either FCV or PCV over a period of 10 h with a fixed FiO 2  of 0.3. FCV settings were individualized by compliance-guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and peak pressure ( P  peak ) titration. Flow was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the inspiration to expiration ratio (I:E ratio) was set at 1:1. PCV was performed with a PEEP of 5 cm H 2 O and  P  peak  was set to achieve a tidal volume ( V  T ) of 7 ml/kg. The respiratory rate was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the I:E ratio was set at 1:1.5. Repeated measurements during observation period were assessed by linear mixed-effects model.    Results  In FCV ( n  = 6), respiratory minute volume was significantly reduced (6.0 vs 12.7, MD − 6.8 (− 8.2 to − 5.4) l/min;  p  < 0.001) as compared to PCV ( n  = 6). Oxygenation was improved in the FCV group (paO 2  119.8 vs 96.6, MD 23.2 (9.0 to 37.5) Torr; 15.97 vs 12.87, MD 3.10 (1.19 to 5.00) kPa;  p  = 0.010) and CO 2  removal was more efficient (paCO 2  40.1 vs 44.9, MD − 4.7 (− 7.4 to − 2.0) Torr; 5.35 vs 5.98, MD − 0.63 (− 0.99 to − 0.27) kPa;  p  = 0.006).  P  peak  and driving pressure were comparable in both groups, whereas PEEP was significantly lower in FCV ( p  = 0.002). Computed tomography revealed a significant reduction in non-aerated lung tissue in individualized FCV ( p  = 0.026) and no significant difference in overdistended lung tissue, although a significantly higher  V  T  was applied (8.2 vs 7.6, MD 0.7 (0.2 to 1.2) ml/kg;  p  = 0.025).    Conclusion  Our long-term ventilation study demonstrates the applicability of a compliance-guided individualization of FCV settings, which resulted in significantly improved gas exchange and lung tissue aeration without signs of overinflation as compared to best clinical practice PCV.

Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study