4.2 Article

Spontaneous breathing trials after prolonged mechanical ventilation monitored by electrical impedance tomography: an observational study

Journal

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 61, Issue 9, Pages 1166-1175

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aas.12959

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Far Eastern Memorial Hospital [FEMH-2015-C-069]
  2. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [03FH038I3 MOSES]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThe study objective was to examine the correlation between regional ventilation distribution measured with electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and weaning outcomes during spontaneous breathing trial (SBT). MethodsFifteen patients received 100% automatic tube compensation (ATC) during the first and 70% during the second hour. Another 15 patients received external continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) of 5 and 7.5 cmH(2)O during the first and second hours, respectively. Regional ventilation distributions were monitored with EIT. ResultsTidal volume and tidal variation of impedance correlated significantly during assist-control ventilation and ATC in all patients (r(2) = 0.80 0.18, P < 0.001). Higher support levels resulted in similar ventilation distribution and tidal volume, but higher end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) (P < 0.05). Analysis of regional intratidal gas distribution revealed a redistribution of ventilation towards dorsal regions with lower support level in 13 of 30 patients. These patients had a higher weaning success rate (only 1 of 13 patients failed). Eight of 17 other patient failed (P < 0.05). The number of SBT days needed for weaning was significantly lower in the former group of 13 patients (13.1 +/- 4.0 vs. 20.9 +/- 11.2 days, P < 0.05). ConclusionsRegional ventilation distribution patterns during inspiration were associated with weaning outcomes, and they may be used to predict the success of extubation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available