• J L Robotham, D Cherry, W Mitzner, J L Rabson, W Lixfeld, and B Bromberger-Barnea.
• Crit. Care Med. 1983 Oct 1;11(10):783-93.

AbstractThe hemodynamic effects of intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) have generally been considered straightforward, being dominated by the inspiratory reduction in systemic venous return. Paradoxically, there is considerable debate regarding the effects of PEEP. We have studied both right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) performance during a single IPPV respiratory cycle in dogs with intact circulatory systems or the right heart bypassed in open and closed chest conditions. We have found that the "reverse pulsus paradoxus" during inspiration reflects both transmission of the increased intrathoracic pressure to the thoracic aorta and an increase in LV stroke volume (SV). This inspiratory increase in LVSV has been found to be influenced by, but not dependent on: (a) respiratory variations in RVSV; (b) variations in functional residual capacity or tidal volume altering pulmonary venous return and the degree of physical compression of the heart by the lungs; (c) an inspiratory decrease in RV volume, increasing LV diastolic compliance and, thus, probably improving pulmonary venous return; (d) a decreased transmural aortic diastole pressure reflecting an effective decrease in LV afterload produced by both the general increase in intrathoracic pressure and the direct compression of the heart; and (e) variations in the pulmonary vascular volume as indicated by changes in the transmural LV end-diastolic pressure. An understanding of IPPV during a single respiratory cycle facilitates an appreciation of the steady state hemodynamic effects of IPPV with or without PEEP. Our results imply that measurements made only at end-expiration, ignoring inspiratory events, may have serious limitations. Furthermore, they suggest that IPPV with PEEP should be evaluated as a form of LV assist in LV failure.

9 keywords...

hide…