Variable ventilation versus stepwise lung recruitment manoeuvres for lung recruitment: A comparative study in an experimental model of atelectasis.

BACKGROUND: Variable ventilation recruits alveoli in atelectatic lungs, but it is unknown how it compares with conventional recruitment manoeuvres. OBJECTIVES: To test whether mechanical ventilation with variable tidal volumes and conventional recruitment manoeuvres have comparable effects on lung function. DESIGN: Randomised crossover study. SETTING: University hospital research facility. ANIMALS: Eleven juvenile mechanically ventilated pigs with atelectasis created by saline lung lavage. INTERVENTIONS: Lung recruitment was performed using two strategies, both with an individualised optimal positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP) associated with the best respiratory system elastance during a decremental PEEP trial: conventional recruitment manoeuvres (stepwise increase of PEEP) in pressure-controlled mode) followed by 50 min of volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) with constant tidal volume, and variable ventilation, consisting of 50 min of VCV with random variation in tidal volume. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Before and 50 min after each recruitment manoeuvre strategy, lung aeration was assessed by computed tomography, and relative lung perfusion and ventilation (0% = dorsal, 100% = ventral) were determined by electrical impedance tomography. RESULTS: After 50 min, variable ventilation and stepwise recruitment manoeuvres decreased the relative mass of poorly and nonaerated lung tissue (percent lung mass: 35.3 ±â€Š6.2 versus 34.2 ±â€Š6.6, P  = 0.303); reduced poorly aerated lung mass compared with baseline (-3.5 ±â€Š4.0%, P  = 0.016, and -5.2 ±â€Š2.8%, P  < 0.001, respectively), and reduced nonaerated lung mass compared with baseline (-7.2 ±â€Š2.5%, P  < 0.001; and -4.7 ±â€Š2.8%, P  < 0.001 respectively), while the distribution of relative perfusion was barely affected (variable ventilation: -0.8 ±â€Š1.1%, P  = 0.044; stepwise recruitment manoeuvres: -0.4 ±â€Š0.9%, P  = 0.167). Compared with baseline, variable ventilation and stepwise recruitment manoeuvres increased Pa O 2 (172 ±â€Š85mmHg, P  = 0.001; and 213 ±â€Š73 mmHg, P  < 0.001, respectively), reduced Pa CO 2 (-9.6 ±â€Š8.1 mmHg, P  = 0.003; and -6.7 ±â€Š4.6 mmHg, P  < 0.001, respectively), and decreased elastance (-11.4 ±â€Š6.3 cmH 2 O, P  < 0.001; and -14.1 ±â€Š3.3 cmH 2 O, P  < 0.001, respectively). Mean arterial pressure decreased during stepwise recruitment manoeuvres (-24 ±â€Š8 mmHg, P  = 0.006), but not variable ventilation. CONCLUSION: In this model of lung atelectasis, variable ventilation and stepwise recruitment manoeuvres effectively recruited lungs, but only variable ventilation did not adversely affect haemodynamics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered and approved by Landesdirektion Dresden, Germany (DD24-5131/354/64).

Effect of patient-ventilator asynchrony on lung and diaphragmatic injury in experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome in a porcine model.

BACKGROUND: Patient-ventilator asynchrony during mechanical ventilation may exacerbate lung and diaphragm injury in spontaneously breathing subjects. We investigated whether subject-ventilator asynchrony increases lung or diaphragmatic injury in a porcine model of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: ARDS was induced in adult female pigs by lung lavage and injurious ventilation before mechanical ventilation by pressure assist-control for 12 h. Mechanically ventilated pigs were randomised to breathe spontaneously with or without induced subject-ventilator asynchrony or neuromuscular block (n=7 per group). Subject-ventilator asynchrony was produced by ineffective, auto-, or double-triggering of spontaneous breaths. The primary outcome was mean alveolar septal thickness (where thickening of the alveolar wall indicates worse lung injury). Secondary outcomes included distribution of ventilation (electrical impedance tomography), lung morphometric analysis, inflammatory biomarkers (gene expression), lung wet-to-dry weight ratio, and diaphragmatic muscle fibre thickness. RESULTS: Subject-ventilator asynchrony (median [interquartile range] 28.8% [10.4] asynchronous breaths of total breaths; n=7) did not increase mean alveolar septal thickness compared with synchronous spontaneous breathing (asynchronous breaths 1.0% [1.6] of total breaths; n=7). There was no difference in mean alveolar septal thickness throughout upper and lower lung lobes between pigs randomised to subject-ventilator asynchrony vs synchronous spontaneous breathing (87.3-92.2 µm after subject-ventilator asynchrony, compared with 84.1-95.0 µm in synchronised spontaneous breathing;). There were also no differences between groups in wet-to-dry weight ratio, diaphragmatic muscle fibre thickness, atelectasis, lung aeration, or mRNA expression levels for inflammatory cytokines pivotal in ARDS pathogenesis. CONCLUSIONS: Subject-ventilator asynchrony during spontaneous breathing did not exacerbate lung injury and dysfunction in experimental porcine ARDS.