These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Airway pressure release ventilation in a neonatal lamb model of acute lung injury.
    Author: Martin LD, Wetzel RC, Bilenki AL.
    Journal: Crit Care Med; 1991 Mar; 19(3):373-8. PubMed ID: 1999099.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To determine if airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is feasible in a neonatal animal model with acute lung injury. DESIGN: Nonrandomized, repeated, bracketed measures. SETTING: University research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Seven neonatal sheep (5.6 +/- 0.6 kg), less than 10 days of age. INTERVENTIONS: Acute lung injury was induced by oleic acid infusion and cardiorespiratory profiles were compared during spontaneous ventilation at ambient airway pressure, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), APRV, and conventional positive-pressure ventilation (PPV). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Oleic acid resulted in acute lung injury with stable cardiorespiratory status during the 3-hr study period. Mean airway pressure (Paw) was comparable for all three positive-pressure modes (CPAP 13.4 +/- 1.5, APRV 13.5 +/- 1.4, PPV 13.9 +/- 1.4 cm H2O, NS). After acute lung injury, CPAP increased arterial oxygenation compared with spontaneous ventilation (77.3 +/- 6.9 vs. 57.7 +/- 4.2 torr [10.3 +/- 0.9 vs. 7.7 +/- 0.6 kPa], p less than .05), and this increase was maintained during APRV (73.3 +/- 5.6 vs. 77.3 +/- 6.9 torr [9.8 +/- 0.7 vs. 10.3 +/- 0.9 kPa], NS). Alveolar ventilation was increased by APRV compared with CPAP (PaCO2 29 +/- 1 vs. 41 +/- 2 torr [3.9 +/- 0.1 vs. 5.4 +/- 0.3 kPa], p less than .05) without impairment of cardiovascular performance (cardiac output 1.18 +/- 0.16 vs. 1.20 +/- 0.17 L/min, NS). To achieve ventilation equivalent to APRV during PPV, peak Paw was greater (36.4 +/- 3.2 vs. 19.7 +/- 1.7 cm H2O, p less than .05) and cardiac output (0.94 +/- 0.11 vs. 1.18 +/- 0.16 L/min, p less than .05) and mean arterial pressure (91 +/- 7 vs. 96 +/- 6 mm Hg, p less than .05) were decreased during PPV compared with APRV. CONCLUSIONS: In this neonatal laboratory model of acute lung injury, APRV maintained oxygenation and augmented alveolar ventilation compared with CPAP. Compared with PPV, APRV provided similar ventilation and oxygenation, but at lower peak Paw than PPV, without compromising cardiovascular performance.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]