• Gerardo Tusman, Stephan H Böhm, Fernando Suarez-Sipmann, and Elsio Turchetto.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital Privado de Comunidad, Mar del Plata, Argentina. gtusman@hotmail.com
• Can J Anaesth. 2004 Aug 1;51(7):723-7.

PurposeThe goal of this study was to analyze the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), with and without a lung recruitment maneuver, on dead space.Methods16 anesthetized patients were sequentially studied in three steps: 1) without PEEP (ZEEP), 2) with 5 cm H(2)O of PEEP and 3) with 5 cm H(2)O of PEEP after an alveolar recruitment strategy (ARS). Ventilation was maintained constant. The single breath test of CO(2) (SBT-CO(2)), arterial oxygenation, end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and respiratory compliance were recorded every 30 min.ResultsPhysiological dead space to tidal volume decreased after ARS (0.45 +/- 0.01) compared with ZEEP (0.50 +/- 0.07, P < 0.05) and PEEP (0.51 +/- 0.06, P < 0.05). The elimination of CO(2) per breath increased during PEEP (25 +/- 3.3 mL.min(-1)) and ARS (27 +/- 3.2 mL.min(-1)) compared to ZEEP (23 +/- 2.6 mL.min(-1), P < 0.05), although ARS showed larger values than PEEP (P < 0.05). Pa-etCO(2) difference was lower after recruitment (0.9 +/- 0.5 kPa, P < 0.05) compared to ZEEP (1.1 +/- 0.5 kPa) and PEEP (1.2 +/- 0.5 kPa). Slope II increased after ARS (63 +/- 11%/L, P < 0.05) compared with ZEEP (46 +/- 7.7%/L) and PEEP (56 +/- 10%/L). Slope III decreased significantly after recruitment (0.13 +/- 0.07 1/L) compared with ZEEP (0.21 +/- 0.11 1/L) and PEEP (0.18 +/- 0.10 1/L). The angle between slope II and III decreased only after ARS. After lung recruitment, PaO(2), EELV, and compliance increased significantly compared with ZEEP and PEEP.ConclusionLung recruitment improved the efficiency of ventilation in anesthetized patients.

35 keywords...

hide…