4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Response to recruitment maneuver influences net alveolar fluid clearance in acute respiratory distress syndrome

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 944-951

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.anes.0000265153.17062.64

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Alveolar fluid clearance is impaired in the majority of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Experimental studies have shown that a reduction of tidal volume increases alveolar fluid clearance. This study was aimed at assessing the impact of the response to a recruitment maneuver (RM) on net alveolar fluid clearance. Methods: In 15 patients with ARDS, pulmonary edema fluid and plasma protein concentrations were measured before and after an RM, consisting of a positive end-expiratory pressure maintained 10 cm H2O above the lower inflection point of the pressure-volume curve during 15 min. Cardiorespiratory parameters were measured at baseline (before RM) and 1 and 4 h later. RM-induced lung recruitment was measured using the pressure-volume curve method. Net alveolar fluid clearance was measured by measuring changes in bronchoalveolar protein concentrations before and after RM. Results: In responders, defined as patients showing an RM-induced increase in arterial oxygen tension of 20% of baseline value or greater, net alveolar fluid clearance (19 +/- 13%/h) and significant alveolar recruitment (113 +/- 101 ml) were observed. In nonresponders, neither net alveolar fluid clearance (-24 +/- 11%/h) nor alveolar recruitment was measured. Responders and nonresponders differed only in terms of lung morphology: Responders had a diffuse loss of aeration, whereas nonresponders had a focal loss of aeration, predominating in the lower lobes. Conclusion: In the absence of alveolar recruitment and improvement in arterial oxygenation, RM decreases the rate of alveolar fluid clearance, suggesting that lung overinflation may be associated with epithelial dysfunction.

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