• Rolf D Hubmayr and Richard A Oeckler.
• Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. rhubmayr@mayo.edu.
• Respir Care. 2014 Aug 1;59(8):1302-5.

AbstractIn the following perspective, we will highlight seemingly remote, downstream consequences of common ventilator management decisions. For example, a change in PEEP may alter venous return, blood pressure, cardiac output, arterial and venous blood gas tensions, metabolic rate, respiratory sensations, breathing pattern, and the work of breathing. If providers consider any of these changes dangerous or maladaptive, they may initiate additional interventions in the form of vasoactive agents, intravenous fluids, and/or sedatives, all of which have their own risk/benefit profile. The approach to such co-interventions is rarely addressed even in well-designed large clinical trials. Therefore, it is often impossible to infer intervention-specific mechanisms of action and/or identify the phenotype of responders and nonresponders in such trials. On the flip side, in preclinical research intended to uncover mechanisms, experimental animals are rarely treated the way a critically ill patient would be. For respiratory therapists, this knowledge gap stresses the imperative to think beyond the lungs and to communicate ventilator management decisions with all members of the healthcare team.Copyright © 2014 by Daedalus Enterprises.

13 keywords...

hide…