4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Effects of an alveolar recruitment maneuver on cardiovascular and respiratory parameters during total intravenous anesthesia in ponies

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 67, 期 1, 页码 152-159

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.67.1.152

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To evaluate pulmonary and cardiovascular effects of a recruitment maneuver (RIV) combined with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during total intravenous anesthesia in ponies. Animals-6 healthy adult Shetland ponies. Procedure-After premedication with detomidine (10 mu g/kg, IV), anesthesia was induced with climazolam (0.06 mg/kg, IV) and ketamine (2.2 mg/kg, IV) and maintained with a constant rate infusion of detomidine (0.024 mg/kg/h), climazolam (0.036 mg/kg/h), and ketamine (2.4 mg/kg/h). The RIM was preceded by an incremental PEEP titration and followed by a decremental PEEP titration, both at a constant airway pressure difference (Delta P) of 20 cm H2O. The RIM consisted of a stepwise increase in Delta P by 25, 30, and 35 cm H2O obtained by increasing peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) to 45, 50, and 55 cm H2O, while maintaining PEEP at 20 cm H2O. Hemodynamic and pulmonary variables were analyzed at every step of the PEEP titration-RM. Results-During the PEEP titration-RM, there was a significant increase in PaO2 (+12%), dynamic compliance (+62%), and heart rate (+17%) and a decrease in shunt (-19%) and mean arterial blood pressure (-21 %) was recorded. Cardiac output remained stable. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Although baseline oxygenation was high, PaO2 and dynamic compliance further increased during the RM. Despite the use of high PIP and PEEP and a high tidal volume, limited cardiovascular compromise was detected. A PEEP titration-RM may be used to improve oxygenation in anesthetized ponies. During stable hemodynamic conditions, PEEP titration-RM can be performed with acceptable adverse cardiovascular effects.

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

4.1
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