摘要
目的探讨不同方法滴定呼气末正压(PEEP)对急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者循环动力学的影响。方法采用单中心前瞻性自身对照观察性方法,选择早期中重度ARDS患者,先予以患者充分肺复张,然后在PEEP递减过程中分别使用最佳氧合法、最佳顺应性法和最小死腔分数法为患者滴定最佳PEEP,分别观察不同的PEEP对患者呼吸力学、血气分析结果和循环动力学的影响。结果共纳入符合标准的患者19例,其中男13例,女6例,年龄(49±11)岁。急性生理学与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ评分为(20.8±6.41)分,中度ARDS 12例、重度ARDS 7例。最佳氧合法所滴定的PEEP水平为(16.7±3.7)cm H_2O,显著高于患者的基线水平(5.0±0.0)cm H_2O、最佳顺应性法(10.9±2.9)cm H_2O和最小死腔分数法(11.5±3.8)cm H_2O的水平(P<0.05)。在各方法滴定的PEEP水平下,最佳氧合法得到的氧合指数即动脉血氧分压/吸氧浓度为(313.7±88.5)mm Hg,显著高于基线水平(151.7±49.2)mm Hg,最佳顺应性法(268.6±92.6)mm Hg和最小死腔分数法的(261.7±71.4)mm Hg(P<0.05);但对肺静态顺应性[(49.7±12.25)m L/cm H2O]和死腔分数即死腔潮气量/呼出潮气量[(58.9±15.87)%]的改善不如最佳顺应性法[(63.3±9.88)m L/cm H2O和(53.3±11.63)%]和最小死腔分数法[(62.5±14.73)m L/cm H_2O和(50.1±9.41)%](P<0.05);与最佳顺应性法和最小死腔分数法相比,最佳氧合法会导致明显升高的中心静脉压[(18.6±5.9)cm H_2O vs(14.8±3.8)cm H_2O vs(15.1±3.7)cm H_2O,P<0.05],明显下降的心输出量(CO)[(3.81±1.32)L/min vs(4.28±0.99)L/min vs(4.32±1.44)L/min,P<0.05]和氧输送(DO_2)[(472.1±133.78)mL/min vs(501.8±99.89)mL/min vs(509.4±103.47)mL/min,P<0.05],但心率[(95.3±9.5)次/min vs(91.9±8.6)次/min vs(90.7±12.7)次/min],平均动脉压[(64.9±14.4)mm Hg vs(73.4±12.6)mmHg vs(73.3±7.8)mmHg]和中心静脉血氧饱和度[(67.74±10.26)%vs(70.53±11.54)%vs(68.87±15.64)%]在3种方法之间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论最佳氧合法所滴定的PEEP水平最高,但显著降低CO和DO_2,而最佳肺顺应性法和最小死腔通气法滴定的PEEP水平较低,但对患者CO和DO_2无显著性影响,临床医师对ARDS患者进行PEEP滴定时需充分考虑其对循环动力学的影响。
Objective To investigate the hemodynamic influence of positive end expiratory pressures (PEEPs) titrated by different methods on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods A prospective self- control observational study was conducted. Moderate to severe ARDS patients in the early stage were enrolled from June 2014 to June 2016, who received recruitment maneuver and followed by a decremented PEEP trail, so as the optimal PEEPs were titrated using optimal oxygenation, best static pulmonary compliance and the lowest dead space fraction meth- ods. The parameters of respiratory mechanics, blood gas analysis and hemodynamic were observed. Results Totally 19 patients were enrolled accoMing to the criteria (13 male) , with age of 49± llyears old, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ (APACHE Ⅱ ) score of 20. 8 ±6. 41. Among them, 12 patients were moderate ARDS and 9 were severe ARDS. The optimal PEEP titrated by optimal oxygenation (16. 7 ±3. 7 cmH20) was significantly higher than the baseline (5.0 ± 0.0 cmH20), and the PEEPs titrated by best static pulmonary compliance (10. 9± 2. 9 cmH2O) and lowest dead space fraction ( 11.5 ±3.8 cmH2O) (P 〈0. 05). The optimal PEEP titrated by best oxygenation resulted in significant higher PaO2/FiO2 (313.7 ± 88.5 mmHg) than the baseline ( 151.7± 49. 2 mmHg), and those using PEEPs titrated by best static pulmonary compliance (268.6 292. 6 mmHg) and lowest dead space fraction (261.7 ±71.4 mmHg) (P 〈 0. 05 ) ; also significant lower pulmonary compliance (Cst) (49. 7± 12. 25 mL/cmH2 O) and higher dead space fraction (Vd/Vt) (58.9 ± 15.87% ) than those using best static pulmonary compliance method (63.3 ±9. 88 mL/cmH2O and 53.3 2 11.63% ) and lowest dead space fraction method ( 62. 5 ± 14. 73 mL/cmH2O and 50. 1 ± 9.41% ) (P 〈 0. 05 ). Compared with using best static pulmonary compliance method and lowest dead space fraction method, using best oxygenation method could result in significant increased CVP (18.6 ±5.9 vs. 14. 8 23.8 and 15.1 23.7 cmH2O, P 〈 0. 05) , decreased cardiac output (CO) (3.81± 1.32 vs. 4. 28 20. 99 and 4. 32 ±1.44 L/rain, P 〈0. 05) and delivery oxygen (DO2 ) (472. 1 ± 133.78 vs. 501.8 ±99. 89 and 509.4± 103.47 mL/min, P 〈0. 05). There was no significant difference in heart rate (HR) (95. 3 ±9. 5 vs. 91.9 28. 6 and 90. 7 2 12. 7 bpm), mean artery pressure (MAP) (64. 9 ± 14.4 vs. 73.4 2 12. 6 and 73.3 2 7.8 mmHg) or central venous saturation ( ScvO2 ) (67.74± 10. 26 vs. 70.53 2 11.54 and 68.87 ± 15.64% ) among the 3 methods ( all P 〉 0. 05 ). Conclusion The optimal PEEP titrated by best oxygena- tion method is the highest one, but significantly reduces the CO and DO2. The optimal PEEPs titrated by best static pul- monary compliance and the lowest dead space fraction are lower but do not influence the CO and DO2 in ARDS patients.
作者
黄丽萍
符晖
王桥生
汤石林
彭良善
HUANG Li - ping FU Hui WANG Qiao - sheng TANG Shi - lin PENG Liang - shan(Department of Critical Care Medicine, the 1st Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, Hengyang 421001, Hu- nan, China)
出处
《广东医学》
CAS
北大核心
2017年第14期2141-2146,共6页
Guangdong Medical Journal
基金
湖南省卫生计生委科研计划课题横向项目(编号:B2017055)
关键词
急性呼吸窘迫综合征
呼气末正压
肺顺应性
死腔
心输出量
acute respiratory distress syndrome
positive end expiratory pressure
pulmonary compliance
dead space
cardiac output