• Yun-mei Yang, Wei-dong Huang, Mei-ya Shen, and Zhe-rong Xu.
• Department of Emergency, First Affiliated Hospital, Medical College, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310003, China.
• Chin. J. Traumatol. 2005 Feb 1;8(1):36-8.

ObjectiveTo observe the clinical therapeutic effect and side effect of pressure-control ventilation (PCV) on traumatic acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) compared with volume-control ventilation (VCV).MethodsForty patients with traumatic ARDS were hospitalized in our department from June 1996 to December 2002. Twenty were treated with PCV (PCV group) and 20 with VCV (VCV group). The changes of the peak inflating pressure and the mean pressure of the airway were observed at the very beginning of the mechanical ventilation and the following 12 and 24 hours, respectively. The transcutaneous saturation of oxygen pressure, the pressure of oxygen in artery, the mean blood pressure, the central venous pressure, the heart rate and the incidence of the pressure injury were also monitored before ventilation and 12 hours after ventilation.ResultsThe pressure of oxygen in artery, the transcutaneous saturation of oxygen pressure, the heart rate and the respiratory rate in the PCV group were obviously improved after ventilation treatment. The peak inflating pressure, the mean pressure of the airway and the central venous pressure in the PCV group were lower than in the VCV group. The incidence of pressure injury was 0 in the PCV group while 10% in the VCV group.ConclusionsThe clinical effect of PCV on traumatic ARDS is better and the incidence rate of pressure injury is lower than that of VCV. PCV has minimal effects on the hemodynamics.

17 keywords...

hide…