• C B Moomey, T C Fabian, M A Croce, S M Melton, and K G Proctor.
• Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee, Memphis, USA.
• J Trauma. 1998 Aug 1;45(2):283-90.

PurposeTo compare the effects of mechanical ventilation with either positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) or partial liquid ventilation (PLV) on cardiopulmonary function after severe pulmonary contusion.MethodsMongrel pigs (32 +/- 1 kg) were anesthetized, paralyzed, and mechanically ventilated (8-10 mL/kg tidal volume; 12 breaths/min; FiO2 = 0.5). Systemic hemodynamics and pulmonary function were measured for 7 hours after a captive bolt gun delivered a blunt injury to the right chest. After 5 hours, FiO2 was increased to 1.0 and either PEEP (n = 7) in titrated increments to 25 cm H2O or PLV with perflubron (LiquiVent, 30 mL/kg, endotracheal) and no PEEP (n = 7) was administered for 2 hours. Two control groups received injury without treatment (n = 6) or no injury with PLV (n = 3). Fluids were liberalized with PEEP versus PLV (27 +/- 3 vs. 18 +/- 2 mL.kg-1.h-1) to maintain cardiac filling pressures.ResultsBefore treatment at 5 hours after injury, physiologic dead space fraction (30 +/- 4%), pulmonary vascular resistance (224 +/- 20% of baseline), and airway resistance (437 +/- 110% of baseline) were all increased (p < 0.05). In addition, PaO2/FiO2 had decreased to 112 +/- 18 mm Hg, compliance was depressed to 11 +/- 1 mL/cm H2O (36 +/- 3% of baseline), and shunt fraction was increased to 22 +/- 4% (all p < 0.05). Blood pressure and cardiac index remained stable relative to baseline, but stroke index and systemic oxygen delivery were depressed by 15 to 30% (both p < 0.05). After 2 hours of treatment with PEEP versus PLV, PO2/FiO2 was higher (427 +/- 20 vs. 263 +/- 37) and dead space ventilation was lower (4 +/- 3 vs. 28 +/- 7%) (both p < 0.05), whereas compliance tended to be higher (26 +/- 2 vs. 20 +/- 2) and shunt fraction tended to be lower (0 +/- 0 vs. 7 +/- 4). With PEEP versus PLV, however, cardiac index, stroke index, and systemic oxygen delivery were 30 to 60% lower (all p < 0.05). Furthermore, although contused lungs showed similar damage with either treatment, the secondary injury in the contralateral lung (as manifested by intra-alveolar hemorrhage) was more severe with PEEP than with PLV.ConclusionsBoth PEEP and PLV improved pulmonary function after severe unilateral pulmonary contusion, but negative hemodynamic and histologic changes were associated with PEEP and not with PLV. These data suggest that PLV is a promising novel ventilatory strategy for unilateral pulmonary contusion that might ameliorate secondary injury in the contralateral uninjured lung.

22 keywords...

hide…