The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units

Kiaei, Babak Ali; Kashefi, Parviz; Taghi Hashemi, Seyed; Mobasheri, Ahmad

The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan, Iran

² Medical School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: The conventional method for ventilation is supported by accommodative or adaptive support ventilation (ASV) that the latter method is done with two methods: ASV minute ventilation (mv): 110% and ASV mv: 120%. Regarding these methods this study compared the differences in duration of mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic changes during recovery and length of stay in Intensive Care Units (ICU). Materials and Methods: In a clinical trial study, forty patients candidate for ventilation were selected and randomly divided into two groups of A and B. All patients were ventilated by Rafael ventilator. Ventilator parameters were set on ASV mv: 110% or ASV mv: 120% and patients were monitored on pulse oximetry, electrocardiography monitoring, central vein pressure and arterial pressure. Finally, the data entered to computer and analyzed by SPSS software. Results: The time average of connection to ventilator in two groups in modes of ASV mv: 110% and 120% was 12.3 ± 3.66 and 10.8 ± 2.07 days respectively, and according to t-test, there was no significant difference between two groups (P = 0.11). The average of length of stay in ICU in two groups of 110% and 120% was 16.35 ± 3.51 and 15.5 ± 2.62 days respectively, and according to t-test, there found to be no significant difference between two groups (P = 0.41). Conclusion: Using ASV mv: 120% can decrease extubation time compared with ASV mv: 110%. Furthermore, there is not a considerable side effect on hemodynamic of patients.

Keywords

References

1.	Nikravan M, Shiri H. Intensive Care in ICU. 2^nd ed. Tehran: Noor-e-Danesh Publications; 2008. p. 242-59, 261.
2.	Walthall H, Ray S. Do intraoperative variables have an effect on the timing of tracheal extubation after coronary artery bypass graft surgery? Heart Lung 2002;31:432-9.
3.	Peterson GN, Domino KB, Caplan RA, Posner KL, Lee LA, Cheney FW. Management of the difficult airway: A closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology 2005;103:33-9.
4.	Walthall H, Robson D, Ray S. Do any preoperative variables have an effect on the timing of tracheal extubation after coronary artery bypass graft surgery? Heart Lung 2001;30:216-24.
5.	Jaber S, Jung B, Corne P, Sebbane M, Muller L, Chanques G, et al. An intervention to decrease complications related to endotracheal intubation in the Intensive Care Unit: A prospective, multiple-center study. Intensive Care Med 2010;36:248-55.
6.	Iotti GA, Polito A, Belliato M, Pasero D, Beduneau G, Wysocki M, et al. Adaptive support ventilation versus conventional ventilation for total ventilatory support in acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med 2010;36:1371-9.
7.	Chen SC, Cheng WE, Shih CM, Chu CC, Liu CJ. Adaptive support ventilation: Review of the literature and clinical applications. Crit Care. 2008;19:465-71.
8.	Choi IS, Choi JE, Hong SB, Lim CM, Koh Y. A comparison of adaptive support ventilation (ASV) and conventional volume-controlled ventilation on respiratory mechanics in acute lung injury/ARDS. Korean Journal of Critical Care Medicine. 2009; 24:59-63.
9.	Fernández J, Miguelena D, Mulett H, Godoy J, Martinón-Torres F. Adaptive support ventilation: State of the art review. Crit Care Med 2013;17:16-22.
10.	Kirakli C, Ozdemir I, Ucar ZZ, Cimen P, Kepil S, Ozkan SA. Adaptive support ventilation for faster weaning in COPD: A randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J. 2011;38:774–80.
11.	Wu CP, Lin HI, Perng WC, Yang SH, Chen CW, Huang YC, et al. Correlation between the %MinVol setting and work of breathing during adaptive support ventilation in patients with respiratory failure. Respir Care 2010;55:334-41.
12.	Arnal JM, Wysocki M, Novotni D, Demory D. Hamilton Manual, 2009. Available from: http://www.hamilton-medical.com. [Last accessed on 2014 Oct 08].
13.	Sulemanji D, Marchese A, Garbarini P, Wysocki M, Kacmarek RM. Adaptive support ventilation: An appropriate mechanical ventilation strategy for acute respiratory distress syndrome? Anesthesiology 2009;111:863-70.

Advanced Biomedical Research