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 and Aim:  Mechanical ventilation is essential for supporting patients’ respiratory function when they are under general anesthesia. For cats with limited lung capacity, the different effects of volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) on respiratory function remain elusive. The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of VCV and PCV in cats under general anesthesia using a cuffed endotracheal tube (ETT).    Materials and Methods:  Twelve healthy cats were randomly allocated to either a VCV or PCV group. Five tidal volumes (6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mL/kg) were randomly applied to assess the efficacy of VCV, and respiratory rates were adjusted to achieve a minute ventilation of 100 mL/kg/min. Peak inspiratory pressures (4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 mmHg) were randomly applied to assess the efficacy of PCV, and respiratory rates were adjusted to achieve a minute ventilation of 100 mL/kg/min. Blood pressure, gas leakages, and end-tidal CO 2  were recorded from 60 trials for airway control during the use of VCV or PCV. Data were compared using Fisher’s exact test with a significance level of p<0.05.    Results:  Leakages did not differ between VCV (1/60 events) and PCV (0/60 events; p=0.500). Hypercapnia was identified when using VCV (6/60 events) less frequently than when using PCV (7/60 events; p=0.762), but did not reach statistical significance. Hypotension (mean arterial blood pressure <60 mmHg) occurred less frequently with VCV (0/60 events) than with PCV (9/60 events; p=0.003). Moreover, VCV provided a significantly lower work of breathing (151.10±65.40 cmH 2 O mL) compared with PCV (187.84±89.72 cmH 2 O mL; p<0.05).    Conclusion:  VCV in cats using a cuffed ETT causes less hypotension than PCV. It should be noted that VCV provides a more stable tidal volume compared with PCV, resulting in a more stable minute volume. Nonetheless, VCV should not be used in patients with an airway obstruction because higher peak airway pressure may occur and lead to lung injury.

Effects of pressure- and volume-controlled ventilation on the work of breathing in cats using a cuffed endotracheal tube