Journals / Turkish Respiratory Journal / 2002 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3

Can arterial minus end-trial carbon dioxide gradient be used for peep titration?

Pages
94–97
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: PaCO2-PetCO2 gradient is a useful and easily available parameter to find optimal PEEP in patients with ARDS.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: There is a debate about how to find optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in the current literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:PEEP levels were applied in random sequence as 5, 10, 15 and 20 cmH2O.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: PaCO2-PetCO2 gradient is a useful and easily available parameter to find optimal PEEP in patients with ARDS.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Pozitif-basınçlı solunum · Ventilatörler · mekanik

Abstract

Objectives: There is a debate about how to find optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in the current literature. Our aim was to determine whether arterial minus end-tidal carbon dioxide can be used to find optimal PEEP in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. Setting: Eight beds, postsurgical intensive care unit of a university hospital. Patients: Eight patients with ARDS were included in the study. One patient was excluded due to desaturation in the initial phase of the study. Interventions: The patients were sedated and paralyzed. PEEP levels were applied in random sequence as 5, 10, 15 and 20 cmH2O. Results: PaCO2- PetCO2 gradient was 11.0 (2.8-20.0) at 5 cmH2O of PEEP and decreased to 9.0 (1.2-20) with 10 of PEEP, further decreased to 7.0 (2.0-16.1) with 15 of PEEP and increased to 17.0 (4.6-22.0) with 20 cmH2O PEEP. Qsp/Qt was 0.4 (0.28-0.71) and 0.4 (0.19-0.45) with 5 and 10 cmH2O of PEEP and decreased to 0.31 (0.11-0.71) with 15 cmH2O of PEEP and to 0.30 (0.29-0.32) with 20 cmH2O PEEP. VD/VT decreased to 0.21 (0.2-0.36) and 0.15 (0.6-0.36) with 10 and 15 cmH2O of PEEP from 0.35 (0.05-0.41) at 5 cmH2O of PEEP and increased to 0.31 (0.05-0.47) with 20 cmH2O of PEEP. As we increase PEEP we observed that the intrapulmonary shunt was decreasing although PaCO2-PetCO2 decreased up to 15 cmH2O PEEP and increased at 20 cmH2O PEEP just as VD/VT PaCO2-PetCO2 gradient was minimal when PaO2 was maximal. Conclusion: PaCO2-PetCO2 gradient is a useful and easily available parameter to find optimal PEEP in patients with ARDS.

🔖

Cite This Article

SUNGUR, M., OK, E., BEYKÜMÜL, A., GÜVEN, M., SÖZÜER, E. (2002). Can arterial minus end-trial carbon dioxide gradient be used for peep titration?. Turkish Respiratory Journal, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 3, 94–97. https://ajindex.com/articles/375334

References (16)

  1. Dall'Ava-Santucci J, Armaganidis A, Brunet F, et al. Mechanical effects of PEEP in adult respiratory distress syndrome. J Appl Physiol 1990; 3:843-8
  2. Petty TL. The use, abuse, and mystique of positive end-expiratory pressure. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988; 138:475-8
  3. Lenfant C. Revival of an old battle: Intermittent vs. continuous positive-pressure breathing. N Engl J Med 1970; 283:1463-4
  4. Hickling KG. Ventilatory management of ARDS: Can it affect the outcome? Intensive Care Med 1990; 16:219-26
  5. Lutch JS, Murray JF. Continuous positive-pressure ventilation: effects of systemic oxygen transport and tissue oxygenation. Ann Intern Med 1972; 76:193-202
  6. Suter PM, Fairley HB, Isenberg MD. Optimum end-expiratory airway pressure in patients with acute pulmonary failure. N Engl J Med 1975; 292:284-9
  7. Rodriguez-Roisin R, Roca J, Barbera JA. Extrapulmonary and intrapulmonary determinants of pulmonary gas exchange. Ventilatory failure: update in intensive care and emergency medicine 15. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1991: 18-36
  8. Murray IP, Modeli HJ, Gallagher TJ, Banner MJ. Titration of PEEP by arterial minus end-tidal carbon dioxide gradient. Chest 1984; 85:100-4
  9. Smith RPR, Fletcher R. Positive end-expiratoiy pressure has little effect on carbondioxide elimination after cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg 2000;90:85-8
  10. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Pulmonary Artery Catheterization: Practice guidelines for pulmonary artery catheterization. Anesthesiology 1993; 78:380-394
  11. Nicotra MB, Stevens PM, Virosalav J, Alvarez AA. Physiologic evaluation of positive end-expiratory pressure ventilation. Chest 1973; 64:10-5
  12. Hickling KG, Henderson SJ, Jackson R. Low mortality associated with low volume pressure limited ventilation with permissive hypercapnia in severe adult respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 1990; 16:372-7
  13. Hammon JW, Wolf WG, MoranJF, et al. The effect of positive end- expiratory pressure on regional ventilation and perfusion in the normal and injured primate lung. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1976; 72:680-9
  14. Rodriguez-Roisin R, Wagner PD. Clinical relevance of ventilation- perfusion inequality determined by inert gas elimination. Eur Respir J 1989; 3:469-82
  15. Dueck R, Wagner PD, West JB. Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gas exchange in dogs with normal and edematous lungs. Anesthesiology 1977; 47:359-66
  16. Gallagher TJ, Civetta JM, Kirby RR. Terminology update: optimal PEEP. Crit