Chest ACCP Education Calendar
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kacmarek, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Kimball, W. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kacmarek, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Kimball, W. R.
(Chest. 1995;108:1073-1079.)
© 1995 American College of Chest Physicians

The Effects of Applied vs Auto-PEEP on Local Lung Unit Pressure and Volume in a Four-Unit Lung Model

Robert M. Kacmarek PhD, RRT1; Max Kirmse MD1; Masaji Nishimura MD1; Harald Mang MD1; and William R. Kimball PhD, MD1

1 From the Departments of Anesthesia and Respiratory Care, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston

Background: The application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and maintenance of increased mean airway pressure (MAP) has been associated with improved oxygenation in adult respiratory distress syndrome. Recently, attention has been directed toward elevating MAP by establishing auto-PEEP when ventilating with an inverse inspiratory to expiratory ratio in opposition to applied PEEP. We theorized that FRC distribution and local lung unit end-expiratory pressure (EEP) would be different when equal levels of PEEP were established by applying PEEP or by producing auto-PEEP.

Methods: Using a four-chamber lung model with each chamber having a different time constant (TC), we applied equal levels of applied PEEP (I:E ratio 1:3) and auto-PEEP (I:E ratio 3:1) and evaluated local lung unit EEP and end expiratory lung volume (EELV).

Results: During all trials with applied PEEP, local lung unit EEP was equal to applied PEEP, whereas during auto-PEEP local EEP differed (p<0.01). At a tracheal auto-PEEP level of 12.7 cm H2O, the lung unit with the longest TC (slow lung unit) had an EEP of 15.8 cm H2O, while the shortest TC unit (fast lung unit) had an EEP of 10.1 cm H2O (p<0.01). Similarly, local EELVs were more maldistributed with auto-PEEP than with applied PEEP. At a tracheal PEEP level of 12.7 cm H2O, the EELV increase in the slow lung unit with auto-PEEP was 1,054 mL vs 918 with applied PEEP (p<0.01), whereas the fast lung unit's EELV increase with auto-PEEP was 142 mL compared with 212 mL with applied PEEP (p<0.01).

Conclusion: Comparing equal levels of auto-PEEP with applied PEEP, a greater maldistribution of local lung unit EEP and EELV was established with the auto-PEEP. During auto-PEEP, the greatest EEP and EELV occurred in the slow lung unit, and the lowest EEP and EELV developed in the fast lung unit.

Key Words: applied PEEP • ARDS • auto-PEEP • compliance • end-expiratory lung volume • lung model • mechanical ventilation • resistance • time constant

Submitted on May 19, 1994
Accepted on February 16, 1995




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
C. Edibam, A. J. Rutten, D. V. Collins, and A. D. Bersten
Effect of Inspiratory Flow Pattern and Inspiratory to Expiratory Ratio on Nonlinear Elastic Behavior in Patients with Acute Lung Injury
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., March 1, 2003; 167(5): 702 - 707.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American College of Chest Physicians.