4.6 Article

What has been learnt from P/V curves in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 22, 期 -, 页码 22S-26S

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.03.00004204

关键词

acute lung injury; acute respiratory distress syndrome; alveolar recruitment; lung protective mechanical ventilation; pressure/volume curve; respiratory mechanics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mechanical impairment of the respiratory system was recognised soon after the description of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The analysis of the pressure/volume (P/V) curve of the respiratory system contributed a lot to the understanding of the pathophysiology of acute lung injury and formed the basis for lung protection. The lower and upper inflection points were regarded as points of interest to avoid cyclic derecruitment and overdistension and to optimise ventilatory settings. However, because of the heterogeneity of lung injury, reducing the mechanical properties of the whole respiratory system to a single curve is a schematic approach, which makes interpretation difficult. New data suggest that alveolar re-inflation occurs along the whole P/V curve that can, therefore, be considered as a recruitment curve. The lower inflection point has no relationship with alveolar opening and closure and does not indicate the positive end-expiratory pressure needed to prevent alveolar collapse. The shape of the P/V curve gives information about the extension and the homogeneity of lung injury, indicating the possibility of lung recruitment. The upper inflection point, classically seen as the beginning of overdistension, may also indicate the end of recruitment. The pressure/volume curve offers the unique opportunity of evaluating alveolar recruitment/derecruitment at the bedside that can be helpful for the identification of optimal ventilatory settings and makes the curve a valuable tool for the ventilatory management of acute lung injury.

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