Premium
Proximal and tracheal airway pressures during different modes of mechanical ventilation: An animal model study
Author(s) -
Zobel G.,
Dacar D.,
Rödl S.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
pediatric pulmonology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.866
H-Index - 106
eISSN - 1099-0496
pISSN - 8755-6863
DOI - 10.1002/ppul.1950180408
Subject(s) - medicine , ventilation (architecture) , tracheal tube , mechanical ventilation , transpulmonary pressure , airway , mean airway pressure , anesthesia , respiratory failure , respiratory system , cardiology , lung , lung volumes , mechanical engineering , engineering
Objective : To determine the differences between the mean proximal and tracheal airway pressures during 3 different modes of mechanical ventilation (MV) in an animal model of acute cardiac failure (CF) and respiratory failure (RF). Design: Prospective, randomized, crossover design. Setting: University research laboratory. Subjects: Twelve young pigs weighing 10–16 kg. Interventions: The experimental protocol consisted of 3 stable 30 min conditions: when ventricular and pulmonary function was normal (control), after the induction of acute cardiac failure by a β‐blocking agent and after respiratory failure induced by repeated lung lavages. Modes of MV included controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV), high‐frequency oscillation (HFO), and high‐frequency jet ventilation (HFJV). Measurements and results : The tracheal mean airway pressure (Paw) was measured at the distal port of the Hi‐lo jet tube using an air‐filled pressure transducer. The mean transpulmonary P aw aw increased significantly from 0.41 + 0.14 kPa during the control period to 1.15 ± 0.17 kPa ( P < 0.0001) during the RF period. In all study periods both the proximal and tracheal P aw were lowest during HFJV. There was no difference between the proximal and tracheal P aw during CMV and HFJV throughout the protocol. In the cardiac and respiratory failure periods the proximal P aw (CF, 1.45 ± 0.08 kPa; RF, 3.13 ± 0.27 kPa) was significantly higher than the tracheal P aw (CF, 1.04 ± 0.09 kPa, P < 0.01; RF, 2.18 ± 0.3 kPa, P < 0.01) with HFO. When ventilated by HFO, the mean external oscillatory amplitude was 4.33 ± 0.14 kPa and the intratracheal oscillatory amplitude was only 0.49 ± 0.06 kPa ( P < 0, 0001). Conclusion : HFJV provides adequate respiratory support at lower P aw than CMV and HFO. Proximal P aw closely reflects tracheal during CMV and HFJV. However, with HFO great pressure differences between the proximal and tracheal airways are evident. Therefore, additional intratracheal airway pressure monitoring seems to be very useful for optimizing ventilator settings during HFO. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1994;18:239–243 . ©1994 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.