Scholarlink

Background <p>APRV has been used for ARDS in the past. Little is known about the risk of ventilator- induced lung- injury (VILI) in APRV vs. BIPAP in the management of in COVID19-associated ARDS (CARDS). This study aimed to compare transpulmonary pressures (TPP) in APRV vs. BIPAP in CARDS in regard to lung protective ventilator settings.</p> Methods <p>This retrospective, monocentric cohort study (ethical approval: 21-1553) assessed all adult ICU- patients with CARDS who were ventilated with BIPAP vs. APRV and monitored with TPP from 03/2020 to 10/2021. Ventilator-settings / -pressures, TPP, hemodynamic and arterial blood gas parameters were compared in both modes.</p> Results <p>20 non- spontaneously breathing patients could be included in the study: Median TPPendexpiratory was lower / negative in APRV (-1.20mbar; IQR − 4.88 / +4.53) vs. positive in BIPAP (+ 3.4mbar; IQR + 1.95 / +8.57; <i>p</i> &lt; .01). Median TPPendinspiratory did not differ. In APRV, mean tidal- volume per body- weight (7.05 ± 1.28 vs. 5.03 ± 0.77&#xa0;ml; <i>p</i> &lt; .01) and mean airway- pressure (27.08 ± 1.67 vs. 22.68 ± 2.62mbar; <i>p</i> &lt; .01) were higher. There was no difference in PEEP, peak-, plateau- or driving- pressure, compliance, oxygenation and CO<sub>2</sub>- removal between both modes.</p> Conclusion <p>Despite higher tidal- volumes / airway-pressures in APRV vs. BIPAP, TPPendinspirator<i>y</i> was not increased. However, in APRV median TPPendexpiratory was negative indicating an elevated risk of occult atelectasis in APRV- mode in CARDS. Therefore, TPP- monitoring could be a useful tool for monitoring a safe application of APRV- mode in CARDS.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) versus biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) ventilation in COVID-19 associated ARDS using transpulmonary pressure monitoring

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月1日

查看全文
  • Sandra Emily Stoll,
  • Tobias Leupold,
  • Hendrik Drinhaus,
  • Fabian Dusse,
  • Bernd W. Böttiger,
  • Alexander Mathes

摘要

Background

APRV has been used for ARDS in the past. Little is known about the risk of ventilator- induced lung- injury (VILI) in APRV vs. BIPAP in the management of in COVID19-associated ARDS (CARDS). This study aimed to compare transpulmonary pressures (TPP) in APRV vs. BIPAP in CARDS in regard to lung protective ventilator settings.

Methods

This retrospective, monocentric cohort study (ethical approval: 21-1553) assessed all adult ICU- patients with CARDS who were ventilated with BIPAP vs. APRV and monitored with TPP from 03/2020 to 10/2021. Ventilator-settings / -pressures, TPP, hemodynamic and arterial blood gas parameters were compared in both modes.

Results

20 non- spontaneously breathing patients could be included in the study: Median TPPendexpiratory was lower / negative in APRV (-1.20mbar; IQR − 4.88 / +4.53) vs. positive in BIPAP (+ 3.4mbar; IQR + 1.95 / +8.57; p < .01). Median TPPendinspiratory did not differ. In APRV, mean tidal- volume per body- weight (7.05 ± 1.28 vs. 5.03 ± 0.77 ml; p < .01) and mean airway- pressure (27.08 ± 1.67 vs. 22.68 ± 2.62mbar; p < .01) were higher. There was no difference in PEEP, peak-, plateau- or driving- pressure, compliance, oxygenation and CO2- removal between both modes.

Conclusion

Despite higher tidal- volumes / airway-pressures in APRV vs. BIPAP, TPPendinspiratory was not increased. However, in APRV median TPPendexpiratory was negative indicating an elevated risk of occult atelectasis in APRV- mode in CARDS. Therefore, TPP- monitoring could be a useful tool for monitoring a safe application of APRV- mode in CARDS.