• U Ludwigs, C Klingstedt, S Baehrendtz, and G Hedenstierna.
• Department of Medicine, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
• Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997 Jan 1;41(1 Pt 1):71-7.

BackgroundInverse ratio ventilation (IRV) is frequently used in severe acute respiratory failure. IRV may lead to intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and is thought to improve oxygenation and to have advantageous effects on lung mechanics. Published data to support the use of IRV are scarce. This animal study compares external PEEP with intrinsic PEEP in pressure- and volume-controlled ventilation.MethodsFifteen pigs were randomly treated with 1. volume-controlled PEEP ventilation (I:E ratio 1:2) (VCV PEEP), 2. volume-controlled ventilation (I:E ratio 4:1) (VCIRV) and 3. pressure-controlled ventilation (I:E ratio 4:1) (PCIRV). Baseline measurements were performed using volume-controlled ventilation (I:E ratio 1:2) (VCV ZEEP). Lung mechanics, haemodynamics and gas exchange were measured by standard methods and functional residual capacity (FRC) by the sulphur hexafluoride technique.ResultsIn comparison to VCV PEEP, PCIRV resulted in reduced peak airway pressure (32 +/- 3 vs. 27 +/- 6 cm H2O, P < 0.001) and increased mean airway pressure (14 +/- 2 vs. 22 +/- 5 cm H2O, P < 0.001). FRC was 942 +/- 264 ml in VCV PEEP and 1024 +/- 390 ml in PCIRV (n.s.). Oxygen delivery was lower in PCIRV (458 +/- 193 vs. 346 +/- 150 ml/min, P < 0.05). Physiologic dead space was 14 +/- 4% in PCIRV and 20 +/- 6% in VCV PEEP and VCIRV (P < 0.005).ConclusionsInverse ratio ventilation did not result in improved FRC in comparison to conventional volume-controlled PEEP ventilation. PCIRV allows for a reduction in minute ventilation but the increase in mean airway pressure compromises circulation.

17 keywords...

hide…