Chest ACCP Member Benefits
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 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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Poelaert, J.
Right arrow Articles by Colardyn, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Poelaert, J.
Right arrow Articles by Colardyn, F.

Chest, Vol 99, 1444-1450, Copyright © 1991 by American College of Chest Physicians


ARTICLES

Evaluation of the hemodynamic and respiratory effects of inverse ratio ventilation with a right ventricular ejection fraction catheter

JI Poelaert, DP Vogelaers and FA Colardyn
Department of Intensive Care, University Hospital, Chent, Belgium.

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.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American College of Chest Physicians.