Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
6
pubmed:dateCreated
1991-7-3
pubmed:abstractText
Pc-IRV has been shown to have respiratory advantages, compared with CPPV. However, the hemodynamic effects of this ventilation mode have not yet been fully elucidated. We used a REF catheter to monitor the hemodynamic changes in the RV. Fifteen ARDS patients were included in the study. The respiratory data showed a 35 percent decrease of PIP and a 32 percent decrease of VTi and VTe with Pc-IRV 4:1 compared with CPPV. Hemodynamic parameters showed a significant incrase in CI (17 percent) in Pc-IRV 4:1, without change in REF. Observing in retrospect the pressure-volume relationship of the RV, we could differentiate a preload (group 1) and an afterload dependent group of patients (group 2), CI was significantly different in the two groups as it rose only in the preload-dependent patients. RVEDVI showed a significant change in group 1, whereas this was absent in the second group. REF was maintained in switching ventilation from CPPV to Pc-IRV with increasing I:E ratio. Pc-IRV appears to be a good alternative ventilatory mode in comparison with CPPV in a selected group of patients with preload dependency (responders); in these patients with respiratory insufficiency, close hemodynamic monitoring is required to optimize ventilation, especially in relation to the hemodynamic effects.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
AIM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jun
pubmed:issn
0012-3692
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
99
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
1444-50
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1991
pubmed:articleTitle
Evaluation of the hemodynamic and respiratory effects of inverse ratio ventilation with a right ventricular ejection fraction catheter.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Intensive Care, University Hospital, Chent, Belgium.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study