4.6 Article

Effect of tidal volume in children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 8, 页码 1428-1437

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-009-1527-z

关键词

Pediatrics; Positive pressure respiration; Lung volume measurements

资金

  1. NIH [5U10 HD050012-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine if tidal volume (V (T)) between 6 and 10 ml/kg body weight using pressure control ventilation affects outcome for children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) or acute lung injury (ALI). To validate lung injury severity markers such as oxygenation index (OI), PaO(2)/FiO(2) (PF) ratio, and lung injury score (LIS). Retrospective, January 2000-July 2007. Tertiary care, 20-bed PICU. Three hundred and ninety-eight endotracheally intubated and mechanically ventilated children with PF ratio < 300. Outcomes were mortality and 28-day ventilator free days. Three hundred and ninety-eight children met study criteria, with 20% mortality. 192 children had ALI. Using > 90% pressure control ventilation, 85% of patients achieved V (T) less than 10 ml/kg. Median V (T) was not significantly different between survivors and non-survivors during the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. After controlling for diagnostic category, age, delta P (PIP-PEEP), PEEP, and severity of lung disease, V (T) was not associated with mortality (P > 0.1), but higher V (T) at baseline and on day 1 of mechanical ventilation was associated with more ventilator free days (P < 0.05). This was particularly seen in patients with better respiratory system compliance [Crs > 0.5 ml/cmH(2)0/kg, OR = 0.70 (0.52, 0.95)]. OI, PF ratio, and LIS were all associated with mortality (P < 0.05). When ventilating children using lung protective strategies with pressure control ventilation, observed V (T) is between 6 and 10 ml/kg and is not associated with increased mortality. Moreover, higher V (T) within this range is associated with more ventilator free days, particularly for patients with less severe disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据