Intensive Care Med (2006) 32:1947–1954 DOI 10.1007/s00134-006-0406-0
Antonia Koutsoukou Helen Perraki Asimina Raftopoulou Nikolaos Koulouris Christina Sotiropoulou Anastasia Kotanidou Stylianos Orfanos Charis Roussos
Received: 28 December 2005 Accepted: 18 September 2006 Published online: 20 October 2006 © Springer-Verlag 2006 This article is discussed in the editorial available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00134-006-0407-z This work was supported by the Thorax foundation.
A. Koutsoukou (u) · H. Perraki · A. Raftopoulou · N. Koulouris · C. Sotiropoulou · A. Kotanidou · S. Orfanos · C. Roussos University of Athens, Department of Critical Care and Pulmonary Services, Evangelismos General Hospital and M. Simou Laboratory, Medical School, 45-47 Ipsilandou Street, 10676 Athens, Greece e-mail:
[email protected] Tel.: +30-210-7201919 Fax: +30-210-7216503
ORIGINAL
Respiratory mechanics in brain-damaged patients
Abstract Objective: To assess respiratory mechanics on the 1st and 5th days of mechanical ventilation in a cohort of brain-damaged patients on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 8 cmH2 O or zero PEEP (ZEEP). Design and setting: Physiological study with randomized control trial design in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit of a university hospital. Patients and measurements: Twenty-one consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with severe brain damage and no acute lung injury were randomly assigned to be ventilated with ZEEP (n = 10) or with 8 cmH2 O of PEEP (n = 11). Respiratory mechanics and arterial blood gases were assessed on days 1 and day 5 of mechanical ventilation. Results: In the ZEEP group on day 1 static elastance and minimal resistance were above normal limits (18.9 ± 3.8 cmH2 O/l and 5.6 ± 2.2 cmH2 O/l per second,
Introduction A considerable number of patients suffering from severe brain damage require mechanical ventilation during the acute posttrauma phase. Although their morbidity and mortality are caused principally by the primary disease, medical complications are frequent, with respiratory dysfunction being the most common nonneurological organ system failure [1]. In spite of this no study has assessed respiratory mechanics on the 1st day of mechanical ventilation in brain-damaged patients. Moreover, although these
respectively); on day 5 static elastance and iso-CO2 minimal resistance values were higher than on day 1 (21.2 ± 4.1 cmH2 O/l; 7.0 ± 1.9 cmH2 O/l per second, respectively). In the PEEP group these parameters did not change significantly. One of the ten patients on ZEEP developed acute lung injury. On day 5 there was a significant decrease in PaO2 /FIO2 in both groups. Conclusions: On day 1 of mechanical ventilation patients with brain damage exhibit abnormal respiratory mechanics. After 5 days of mechanical ventilation on ZEEP static elastance and minimal resistance increased significantly, perhaps reflecting “low lung volume” injury. Both could be prevented by administration of moderate levels of PEEP. Keywords Mechanical ventilation · Head injury · Hypocapnic bronchoconstriction · Ventilator-induced lung injury
patients need prolonged mechanical ventilation because of coma and neuroprotection, no study has followed these patients to assess whether mechanical ventilation-related parameters affect respiratory mechanics. It has been shown that brain-damaged patients undergo a profound inflammatory response characterized by the release of several cytokines [2] and neuropeptides [3]. The biological effects of these substances include leukocyte infiltration and expression of adhesion molecules [4], bronchoconstriction, mucosal edema, and increased vascular permeability [5]. There is also evidence that some of these
1948
substances influence the expression of pulmonary surfactant proteins [6]. Furthermore, traumatic brain injury in animals increases lung vulnerability to subsequent injurious insults [7] and also causes ultrastructural damage in type II pneumocytes [8] which may result in impaired function of pulmonary surfactant. In healthy adults reduced functional residual capacity, peripheral airway closure, atelectasis in the dependent lung zones and impairment of gas exchange with an increased alveolar-arterial oxygen tension difference (DA-aPO2 ) are common during general anesthesia in supine position [9, 10]. Moreover, the presence of airway closure and atelectasis implies inhomogeneous expansion of the lungs with development of heterogeneous mechanical stresses and peripheral airways injury; with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) no such injury is observed [11, 12, 13]. This study assessed respiratory mechanics on the 1st and 5th days of mechanical ventilation in a group of brain-damaged patients on zero PEEP (ZEEP) or PEEP of 8 cmH2 O, the hypothesis being that on ZEEP heterogeneous lung mechanics (atelectasis, airway closure, tidal expiratory flow limitation) worsens respiratory dysfunction while PEEP reduces or prevents it altogether. The results provide the first mechanics data of brain-damaged
patients during early (1st day) mechanical ventilation on ZEEP. Part of this study has been previously reported in the form of an abstract [14].
Materials and methods Subjects The study protocol was reviewed and approved by our institutional ethics committee. Informed consent was obtained from next to kin. Twenty-four consecutive patients admitted to our ICU were recruited according to the following criteria: (a) diagnosis of severe brain damage defined as Glasgow Coma Scale lower than 8 on admission after resuscitation [15]; (b) no acute lung injury (ALI), as estimated by a PaO2 /FIO2 ratio higher than 300 and normal chest radiography [16]; and (c) intracranial pressure (ICP) higher than 8 mmHg. An ICP level above 8 mmHg was chosen to prevent the transmission of PEEP through the cerebral veins according to the Starling resistor model [17]. ALI patients were excluded since their management mandates application of PEEP. Brain damage was diagnosed by clinical history, neurological examina-
Table 1 Anthropometric characteristics, gas exchange data, and cause of brain-damaged patients (ICP intracranial pressure, ICP Z E E P ICP on zero PEEP, ICP PE E P ICP after the application of PEEP) Patient no. ZEEP group 1a 2a 3a 4 5 6 7 8 9a 10a Mean SD PEEP group 11 12a 13 14 15 16 17 18a 19 20 21 Mean SD a smokers
Sex
Age (years)
Weight (kg)
PEEP (cmH2 O)
FIO2
PaO2 /FIO2 ICPZEEP (mmHg) (mmHg)
ICPPEEP (mmHg)
Cause
F M M F M M F M M M
38 58 52 52 30 25 42 32 24 39 39 13
60 85 75 67 80 85 67 78 70 74 74 9
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.55 0.50 0.55 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.35 0.48 0.46 0.10
405 440 561 389 340 474 560 410 374 419 437 74
19 17 12 19 18 16 11 24 16 22 17 4
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Intracranial Hemorrhage Intracranial Hemorrhage Intracranial Hemorrhage Intracranial Hemorrhage Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage – –
M M M M M F M F M M M
21 67 52 47 30 25 19 68 57 20 53 42 19
85 85 70 85 78 65 75 63 80 90 90 79 9
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
0.50 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.45 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.46 0.10
448 385 434 312 347 545 441 335 391 442 426 409 65
15 14 14 12 15 16 17 15 14 15 13 15 1
15 14 15 11 16 15 16 17 16 15 12 15 2
Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage Intracranial Hemorrhage Intracranial Hemorrhage Traumatic brain damage Traumatic brain damage – –
1949
tion, and brain computed tomography. Exclusion criteria were hemodynamic instability and previous history of cardiopulmonary disease. Of the 24 patients who met the inclusion criteria 21 completed the study: in one patient cerebral perfusion pressure fell below 70 mmHg, while two patients became septic (all from the ZEEP group). Patients’ characteristics are summarized in Table 1; the two groups did not differ significantly regarding these. Clinical management and study protocol Mechanical ventilation was initiated in all patients at the emergency room of our hospital. Upon transfer to the ICU patients were sedated using continuous infusion of midazolam or propofol and fentanyl, paralyzed with cisatracurium if needed, and nursed in supine position with an approx. 30° head tilt. All patients were ventilated by volume control modality (Servo 900 C, or 900E, Siemens-Elema, Solna, Sweden). Tidal volume and respiratory frequency were targeted to maintain a PaCO2 equal to 30–35 cmH2 O. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 8 cmH2 O of PEEP or ZEEP. Respiratory system mechanics and blood gases were measured on 1st and 5th days of ICU stay. During this period PEEP was kept constant whereas FIO2 and minute ventilation were modified by the attending physician if needed. Arterial pressure (using standard pressure transducers), ICP (CaminoV-420, Camino medical products, San Diego, Calif., USA), electrocardiography, heart rate, and pulse oximetry were continuously monitored (Life Scope 14, Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan). Patients with signs of sepsis as defined by the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference criteria [18] were excluded from the study. A physician not involved in the study was always present to provide for patient care. As standard care, treatment for increased ICP was initiated at an upper threshold of 20 mmHg, consisting of osmotic diuretics, hyperventilation, and hypertensive therapy provided that complete volume resuscitation had been assured, aiming to a constant cerebral perfusion pressure higher than 60 mmHg [19]. To assure brain protection patients whose cerebral perfusion pressure decreased below 70 mmHg were withdrawn from the study. If patients were
Table 2 Ventilatory settings of brain-damaged patients (VT tidal volume, VTml/kg tidal volume per kilogram of ideal body ˙ minute volume, VI ˙ weight, VE inspiratory flow, TI,TTOT inspiratory and total breathing cycle time, F respiratory rate)
VT (l) VT (ml/kg) ˙ (l) VE ˙ (l/s) VI TI (s) TI/TTOT F (breaths/min)
judged as stable, sedation was discontinued for short periods for assessment of brain function. Instrumentation and measurements Flow was measured using a Hans-Rudolph pneumotachograph (model 3700A) with a linearity range of ± 2.6 l/s attached at the proximal end of the endotracheal tube and connected to a differential pressure transducer (DP 55, ± 3 cmH2 O; Raytech Instruments, Vancouver, B.C., Canada). Pressure at airway opening was measured from a port inserted between the endotracheal tube and the pneumotachograph, connected to a pressure transducer (DP 55, ± 100 cmH2 O) via a rigid polyethylene tube (1.7 mm ID). Pressure transducers were calibrated before each study. Lung volume changes were obtained by numerical integration of the flow signal. Data analysis was performed using Direc (version 2.18; Raytech Instruments) and Anadat (version 5.2; RHT-InfoDat; Montreal, Que., Canada). Respiratory mechanics was assessed by the standard constant-flow airway occlusion technique [20] with the ventilator settings reported in Table 2 plus a 3-s endexpiratory occlusion followed by a 5-s end-inspiratory occlusion. Ventilator settings did not differ significantly between the two patient groups. In addition to daily care, suctioning was performed 15 min prior to each respiratory mechanics measurement. No patient received bronchodilation therapy. During measurements the humidifier was omitted from the ventilatory circuit. Static elastance (Est,rs), additional resistance (∆ Rrs), maximum resistance (Rmax,rs) and minimal resistance (Rmin,rs) of the respiratory system were computed as previously described [21]. Rmax,rs and Rmin,rs were corrected for the endotracheal tube resistance [22]. Statistical analysis Data of respiratory mechanics are presented as mean ± SD; comparisons between experimental conditions (PEEP vs. ZEEP) were performed with the t test while those between days 1 and 5 were performed with the
PEEP = 0 (n = 10) Day 1
Day 5
PEEP = 8 (n = 11) Day 1
Day 5
0.58 ± 0.05 8.7 ± 1.6 9.16 ± 1.84 0.64 ± 0.17 1.17 ± 0.37 0.29 ± 0.06 16 ± 3
0.59 ± 0.04 8.7 ± 0.9 9.05 ± 1.77 0.67 ± 0.13 1.19 ± 0.39 0.29 ± 0.08 15 ± 3
0.59 ± 0.09 8.1 ± 1.0 10.1 ± 2.10 0.70 ± 0.12 0.95 ± 0.21 0.27 ± 0.05 17 ± 2
0.64 ± 0.11 8.7 ± 1.3 11.0 ± 3.40 0.73 ± 0.17 1.06 ± 0.28 0.29 ± 0.05 17 ± 4
1950
paired t test. Regression analysis used the least squares method. Analyses were performed using the software package Statistica. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results On day 1 FIO2 was 0.46 ± 0.10 in both groups and remained essentially constant during the 5-day study period (day 5: 0.45 ± 0.10; Table 3). On day 1 there were no significant differences in gas exchange or respiratory system mechanics between the two groups (Table 3). On day 5
there was a significant PaO2 /FIO2 decrease in both groups; in the ZEEP group significant increases in PaCO2 , Est,rs and iso-CO2 Rmin,rs (see below) occurred and an almost significant increase in DA-aPO2 (p = 0.059). By day 5 one patient under ZEEP exhibited ALI. In the ZEEP group there was a significant increase in PaCO2 , which is known to affect airway caliber [23]. Both on ZEEP and PEEP we found a significant correlation between Rmin,rs changes (∆ Rmin,rs) and the corresponding PaCO2 changes (∆ PaCO2 ) between days 1 and 5 (Fig. 1). When the effects of the PaCO2 changes on Rmin,rs [23] were taken into account using the regression models (Fig. 1), on day 5 there was a significant
Fig. 1 The relationship of the change in minimal resistance of the respiratory system (∆Rmin,rs) between days 5 and 1 to corresponding change in PaCO2 (∆PaCO2 ) in ten brain-damaged patients ventilated on ZEEP (left) and 11 patients ventilated on PEEP (right). All changes refer to absolute values
Table 3 Respiratory mechanics and gas exchange data of the two groups of patients (FIO2 fraction of inspired oxygen, Est,rs static elastance of respiratory system, Rmax,rs maximum resistance of respiratory system, Rmin,rs minimal resistance of respiratory system, iso-CO2 Rmin,rs minimal resistance of respiratory system corrected for corresponding changes in PaCO2 from day 1 to day 5, ∆Rrs additional resistance of respiratory system)
FIO2 PaO2 /FIO2 (mmHg) PaCO2 (mmHg) DA-aO2 (mmHg) Est,rs (cmH2 O/l) Rmax,rs (cmH2 O l−1 s−1 ) Rmin,rs (cmH2 O l−1 s−1 ) Iso-CO2 Rmin,rs (cmH2 O l−1 s−1 ) ∆Rrs (cmH2 O l−1 s−1 )
PEEP = 0 (n = 10) Day 1 Day 5
PEEP = 8 (n = 11) Day 1 Day 5
0.46 ± 0.10 437 ± 74 31 ± 2 87 ± 40 18.9 ± 3.8 9.6 ± 1.9
0.45 ± 0.10 346 ± 76* 34 ± 4* 123 ± 57 21.2 ± 4.1* 10.5 ± 2.5
0.46 ± 0.10 409 ± 65 31 ± 4 100 ± 41 16.1 ± 3.7 10.9 ± 4.5
0.45 ± 0.10 331 ± 88* 33 ± 5 132 ± 56 18.6 ± 3.3 10.4 ± 5.2
5.6 ± 2.2
6.0 ± 1.4
5.4 ± 2.5
5.7 ± 4.4
5.6 ± 2.2
7.0 ± 1.9*
5.4 ± 2.5
6.5 ± 3.2
4.1 ± 2.2
4.5 ± 2.0
5.4 ± 3.2
4.7 ± 1.7
* p < 0.05, day 5 vs day 1
1951
increase in DA-aPO2 which approached significance (p = 0.059). Day 1
Fig. 2 The relationship of the change in PaO2 /FIO2 between days 5 and 1 to corresponding change in minimal resistance over change in static elastance of the respiratory system (∆Rmin,rs/∆Est,rs) in ten brain-damaged patients ventilated on ZEEP. All changes refer to absolute values
increase in ∆ Rmin,rs (intercept at ∆ PaCO2 = 0) on ZEEP (∆ Rmin,rs = 1.5 ± 0.6; p = 0.04) but not on PEEP (1.0 ± 0.9; p = 0.29). Based on this analysis, under isoPaCO2 conditions (i.e., at the PaCO2 of day 1) the values of Rmin,rs on day 5 were 7.0 ± 1.9 cmH2 O/l per second in the ZEEP group and 6.5 ± 3.2 in the PEEP group. Values for iso-CO2 Rmin,rs were significantly higher on day 5 than on day 1 in the ZEEP group but not in the PEEP group. A significant correlation was found between ∆ Rmin,rs/∆ Est,rs, an index of change in the time constant of the respiratory system, and ∆ PaO2 /FIO2 in the ZEEP group (r = –0.8, p = 0.006) but not in the PEEP group (Fig. 2). In the ZEEP group a significant correlation was also found between ∆ Rmin,rs and ∆ DA-aPO2 between day 5 and day 1 (r = 0.66, p = 0.039). ICP values were similar in ZEEP and PEEP groups (day 1, 18 ± 5 vs. 16 ± 2 mmHg, p = 0.58; day 5, 17 ± 3 vs. 18 ± 5 mmHg, p = 0.71). Similar values were obtained in both groups throughout study period.
Discussion The main findings of this study are (a) in brain-damaged patients without ALI on day 1 of mechanical ventilation on ZEEP the static elastance and the minimal resistance were above normal limits; (b) a further increase in static elastance and minimal resistance of the respiratory system was found on day 5 of mechanical ventilation on ZEEP but not with PEEP of 8 cmH2 O; (c) one of the ten patients on ZEEP developed ALI; (d) on day 5 there was a significant decrease in PaO2 /FIO2 in both patient groups; in the ZEEP group there was an
Although on day 1 our patients did not have ALI, their PaO2 /FIO2 was below normal limits [24]. This is probably associated with airway closure and atelectasis that are common with sedation/anesthesia [9, 10]. Their PaCO2 was low since the brain-damaged patients were therapeutically hyperventilated to produce cerebral vasoconstriction and reduce both brain water and blood flow [19]. The ZEEP group exhibited intrinsic PEEP (PEEPi) up to 3.4 cmH2 O in spite of the low tidal volume and long expiratory time used during mechanical ventilation (Table 2). In normal anesthetized paralyzed subjects ventilated at ZEEP with similar tidal volume (7 ml/kg) and expiratory time (2.6–4.4 s) PEEPi is absent [25]. In the PEEP group PEEPi was predictably absent [26]. Est,rs was higher than in normal, anesthetized, paralyzed subjects, as reported by D’Angelo et al. (18.9 ± 3.8 vs. 14.5 ± 2.1 cmH2 O/l; p = 0.001) [25]. This discrepancy cannot be attributed to size differences because height and body mass index were similar, nor to the small, although significant, age difference between the two groups (31 ± 7 vs. 39 ± 13 years; p< 0.002) [27]. Pulmonary edema could partially explain the increase in elastance. Sympathetic hyperactivity with intracranial hypertension or free radicals produced as a result of central nervous system injury may elicit neurogenic pulmonary edema [28]. However, there was no evidence of cardiovascular instability or radiographic findings consistent with pulmonary edema in any patient. Hence atelectasis which is commonly associated with anesthesia and supine position in normal subjects [10], was probably the main contributor to the increase in Est,rs in our patients. Atelectasis and peripheral airway closure [9, 10] were probably enhanced by impaired production or function of pulmonary surfactant due to brain damage [6, 8], contributing to the increased Est,rs. Rmin,rs was higher than in normal, anesthetized, paralyzed subjects (5.6 ± 2.2 vs. 2.3 ± 0.5 cmH2 O/l per second; p< 0.001) [25]. This discrepancy should be due in part to different PaCO2 in normal and brain-damaged patients (37 vs. 31 mmHg). In normal anesthetized, paralyzed subjects a decreased PaCO2 is associated with a significant increase in Rmin,rs [23]. Additional factors may include bronchoconstriction and mucosal edema caused by neuropeptides, such as substance P, which are released in patients with brain damage [3, 5]. ∆ Rrs values in our patients were higher (although not significantly) than those computed at the same inflation time (1.05 s) from data obtained by D’Angelo et al. [25] in normal subjects (4.1 ± 2.2 vs. 3.2 ± 0.7 cmH2 O/l per second; p = 0.1). This is not due to differences in
1952
PaCO2 since ∆ Rrs is independent of this parameter [23]. The increased ∆ Rrs in the brain-damaged patients may reflect increased time constant inequality [21] leading to increased DA-aPO2 , but it may also reflect changes in viscoelastic tissue behavior. Respiratory mechanics has been assessed in few previous studies although not on the 1st day of mechanical ventilation. Tantucci et al. [29] studied five patients with brain damage at unspecified time after onset of mechanical ventilation on ZEEP. Their Rmin,rs values and PEEPi were similar to those of the present study. In contrast, Est,rs tended to be lower than in the present ten patients ventilated on ZEEP (Est,rs: 13.3 ± 7.1 vs. 18.9 ± 3.8 cmH2 O/l, p< 0.06). This probably reflects to large extent the high tidal volume used in that study (15 ml/kg). Caricato et al. [30] provided respiratory mechanics data of brain-damaged patients ventilated on ZEEP but without specifying either the day of mechanical ventilation or ALI presence/absence. Mascia et al. [31] assessed Est,rs in brain-damaged patients with ALI and found values higher than in the present study (24.5 vs. 18.9 cmH2 O/l, respectively). Day 5 In the PEEP group there were no significant changes in respiratory mechanics between days 1 and 5, and no patient developed ALI. In contrast, one patient on ZEEP exhibited ALI by day 5. Furthermore, allowing for the changes in PaCO2 on day 5, there was a 25% increase in Rmin,rs (p < 0.006) in the ZEEP group. However, assuming that this increase was due entirely to peripheral airways (see below), and that peripheral airway resistance represents 20% of Rmin,rs [32], this resistance may have trebled. Moreover, in the ZEEP but not the PEEP group Est,rs significantly increased in relation to day 1. The changes in mechanics in the ZEEP group cannot be attributed to pulmonary overdistention because the values of end-inspiratory plateau pressure were lower than in the PEEP group, and well below 30 cmH2 O [33]. Absorption atelectasis is an unlikely cause since in both groups low FIO2 was used during the 5-day study period. Accordingly, deterioration in respiratory mechanics from day 1 to day 5 in the ZEEP group probably reflects “low volume” injury due to airway closure or heterogeneous constriction [11, 12, 13, 34, 35, 36, 37]. General anesthesia and supine position promote atelectasis in the dependent lung zones and peripheral airway closure even in normal lungs [9, 10]. In our subjects aged 39 ± 13 years, the closing volume should be well above the end-expiratory volume [9]. This implies opening and closing of peripheral airways during tidal breathing and development of shear stresses that can damage peripheral airways. In normal open-chest rabbits mechanical ventilation at low lung volume with physiological tidal volume leads to histological and functional alterations
characterized by damage of terminal bronchioles, rupture of alveolar-bronchiolar attachments, and increased airway resistance [11, 12]. The latter was found in our patients on ZEEP. In the above studies on open-chest rabbits D’Angelo et al. [11, 12] found no change in Est while in our patients on ZEEP Est,rs was increased on day 5 of mechanical ventilation. However, in a subsequent study on closed-chest animals both airway resistance and Est were found to be significantly increased after 3 h of mechanical ventilation at low lung volume [13]. In the presence of airway closure there is heterogeneous lung filling and emptying, which probably also contribute to lung injury [26, 37, 38]. In patients with brain damage abnormal surfactant production resulting from pneumocytes II damage [8] or release of inflammatory mediators [6] could enhance peripheral airway closure and atelectasis. Although significant, the increase in Est,rs and Rmin,rs found in our patients from day 1 to day 5 was relatively small probably because they were young and nonobese. Old age and obesity are known to promote airway closure [9]. Thus in elderly obese subjects as well as in patients with diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [39] and chronic heart failure [40], which promote airway closure, protective PEEP may be mandatory. In our brain-damaged patients a modest level of PEEP (8 cmH2 O) provided protection against lung injury, probably by restoring lung volume and reducing lung heterogeneity. It has been shown that PEEP application does not induce a significant reduction in cerebral perfusion pressure if ICP values are higher than the PEEP applied [41]. In contrast, it has been shown that in brain-damaged patients with ALI application of PEEP lower than ICP increases the latter only by inducing pulmonary hyperinflation resulting to a significant PaCO2 increase [31]. Given that in our patients PaCO2 was always low, a CO2 -mediated increase in ICP was unlikely. Despite similar PaCO2 values, in the PEEP group minute ventilation was slightly higher than in the ZEEP group. Since this difference was not statistically significant, increased dead space ventilation in the former group does not seem likely. Therefore application of moderate PEEP levels in selected brain-damaged patients is safe provided that euvolemia is guaranteed and continuous monitoring of ICP is available. Whether PEEP has any benefit on outcome in this setting remains unproven.
Conclusions The present study shows that on day 1 of mechanical ventilation patients with brain damage exhibit abnormal respiratory mechanics. After 5 days of mechanical ventilation on ZEEP there are significant increases in Est,rs and Rmin,rs which perhaps reflect “low volume” injury, and which could be prevented by administration of moderate levels of PEEP.
1953
References 1. Zygun DA, Kortbeek JB, Fick GH, Laupland KB, Doig CJ (2005) Nonneurologic organ dysfunction in severe traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med 33:654–660 2. Morganti-Kossmann MC, Rancan M, Stahel PF, Kossmann T (2002) Inflammatory response in acute traumatic brain injury: a double-edged sword. Curr Opin Crit Care 8:101–105 3. Rall JM, Matzilevich DA, Dash PK (2003) Comparative analysis of mRNA levels in the frontal cortex and the hippocampus in the basal state and in response to experimental brain injury. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 29:118–131 4. Kunkel SL, Lukacs N, Strieter RM (1995) Chemokines and their role in human disease. Agents Actions 46:11–22 5. Campos M, Calixto JB (2000) Neurokinin mediation of edema and inflammation. Neuropeptides 34:314–322 6. Glumoff V, Vayrynen O, Kangas T, Hallman M (2000) Degree of lung maturity determines the direction of interleukin-1 induced effect on the expression of surfactant proteins. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 22:280–288 7. Lopez-Aguilar J, Villagra A, Bernabe F, Murias G, Piancentini E, Real J, Fernadez-Segoviano P, Romero P, Hotchkiss J, Blanch L (2005) Massive brain injury enhances lung damage in an isolated lung model of ventilatorinduced lung injury. Crit Care Med 33:1077–1083 8. Yildirim E, Kaptanoglou E, Ozisik K, Beskonakli E, Okutan O, Sargon MF, Kilink K, Sakinci U (2004) Ultrastructural changes in pneumocyte type II cells following traumatic brain injury in rats. Eur J Cardiothoracic Surg 25:523–529 9. Rothen HU, Sporre B, Engberg G, Wegenius G, Hedenstierna G (1998) Airway closure, atelectasis and gas exchange during general anesthesia. Br J Anesth 81:681–686 10. Hedenstierna G, Lundquist H, Lundh B, Tokics C, Strandberg A, Brismar B, Frostell C (1989) Pulmonary densities during anesthesia. An experimental study on lung morphology and gas exchange. Eur Respir J 2:528–535 11. D’Angelo E, Pecchiari M, Baraggia P, Saetta M, Balestro E, Milic-Emili J (2002) Low-volume ventilation causes peripheral airway injury and increased airway resistance in normal rabbits. J Appl Physiol 92:949–956
12. D’Angelo E, Pecchiari M, Saetta M, Balestro E, Milic-Emili J (2004) Dependence of lung injury on inflation rate during low-volume ventilation in normal open-chest rabbits. J Appl Physiol 97:260–268 13. D’Angelo E, Pecchiari M, Della Valle P, Koutsoukou A, Milic-Emili J (2005) Effects of mechanical ventilation at low lung volume on respiratory mechanics and nitric oxide exhalation in normal rabbits. J Appl Physiol 99:433–444 14. Koutsoukou A, Perraki H, Raftopoulou S, Tromaropoulos A, Kaziani K, Athanasiou K, Korovessi I, Roussos C (2005) The role of positive end-expiratory pressure in preventing low-volume injury in mechanically ventilated brain damage patients. Eur Respir J 26:557s 15. Teasdale C, Jennett B (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. Lancet II:81–84 16. Bernard GR, Artigas A, Brigham KL, Carlet J, Falke K, Hudson L, Lamy L, Le Gall JR, Morris A, Spragg R (1994) The American-European Consensus Conference on ARDS. Definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes, and clinical trial coordination. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 149:818–824 17. Luce JM, Huseby JS, Kirk W, Butler J (1982) A Starling resistor regulates cerebral venous outflow in dogs. J Appl Physiol 53:1496–1503 18. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference (1992) Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Crit Care Med 20:864–874 19. Vincent JL, Berre J (2005) Primer on medical management of severe brain injury. Crit Care Med 33:1392–1399 20. Bates JHT, Rossi A, Milic-Emili J (1985) Analysis of the behavior of the respiratory system with constant inspiratory flow. J Appl Physiol 58:1840–1848 21. Rossi A, Gottfried SB, Zocchi L, Higgs BD, Lennox S, Calverley PM, Begin P, Grassino A, Milic-Emili J (1985) Measurements of static compliance of the total respiratory system in patients with acute respiratory failure during mechanical ventilation. Am Rev Respir Dis 131:672–677 22. Behrakis PK, Higgs BD, Baydur A, Zin WA, Milic-Emili J (1983) Respiratory mechanics during halothane anesthesia and anesthesia-paralysis in humans. J Appl Physiol 55:1085–1092
23. D’Angelo E, Calderini IS, Tavola M (2001) The effects of CO2 on respiratory mechanics in anesthetized paralyzed humans. Anesthesiology 94:604–610 24. Petros AJ, Dorre CJ, Nunn JF (1994) Modification of the iso-shunt lines for low inspired oxygen concentration. Br J Anesth 72:515–522 25. D’Angelo E, Calderini E, Torri G, Rabatto FM, Bono D, Milic-Emili J (1989) Respiratory mechanics in anesthetized paralyzed humans: effects of flow, volume, and time. J Appl Physiol 67:2556–2564 26. Koutsoukou A, Bekos B, Sotiropoulou C, Koulouris NG, Roussos C, Milic-Emili J (2002) Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gas exchange and expiratory flow limitation in adult respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 30:1941–1949 27. Turner JM, Mead J, Wohl ME (1968) Elasticity of human lungs in relation to age. J Appl Physiol 25:664–671 28. Dettbarn CL, Davinson LJ (1989) Pulmonary complications in the patient with acute head injury: neurogenic pulmonary edema. Heart Lung 18:583–589 29. Tantucci C, Corbeil C, Chasse M, Braidy J, Matar N, Milic-Emili J (1993) Flow resistance in mechanically ventilated patients with severe neurologic injury. J Crit Care 8:133–139 30. Caricato A, Conti G, Della Corte F, Mancino A, Santilli F, Sandroni C, Proietti R, Antonelli M (2005) Effects of PEEP on the intracranial system of patients with head injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage: the role of respiratory system compliance. J Trauma 58:571–576 31. Mascia L, Grasso S, Fiore T, Bruno F, Berardino M, Ducati A (2005) Cerebropulmonary interactions during the application of low levels of positive end-expiratory pressure. Intensive Care Med 31:373–379 32. Macklem PT, Woolcock AJ, Hogg C, Nadel JA, Wilson NJ (1969) Partitioning of pulmonary resistance in the dog. J Appl Physiol 26:798–805 33. International consensus conference in intensive care medicine: ventilatorassociated Lung Injury in ARDS (1999) Am J Respir Crit Care Med 160:2118–2124 34. Muscedere JG, Mullen JB, Gun K, Slutsky AS (1994) Tidal ventilation at low airway pressures can augment lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 149:1327–1334
1954
35. Slutsky A (1999) Lung injury caused by mechanical ventilation. Chest 116:9S–15S 36. Nucci G, Suki B, Lutchen K (2003) Modeling air-flow related shear stress during heterogeneous constriction and mechanical ventilation. J Appl Physiol 95:348–356 37. Koutsoukou A, Koulouris N, Bekos B, Sotiropoulou C, Kosmas E, Papadima K, Roussos C (2004) Expiratory flow limitation in morbidly obese postoperative mechanically ventilated patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 48:1080–1088
38. Mead J, Takishima T, Leith D (1970) Stress distribution in lungs: a model of pulmonary elasticity. J Appl Physiol 28:596–608 39. Guerin C, LeMasson S, de Varax R, Milic-Emili J, Fournier G (1997) Small airway closure and positive end-expiratory pressure in mechanically ventilated patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 155:1949–1956
40. Collins JV, Clark TJK, Brown J (1975) Airway function in healthy subjects and patients with left heart disease. Clin Sci Mol Med 49:217–228 41. McGuire G, Crossley D, Richards J, Wong D (1997) Effects of varying levels of positive end-expiratory pressure on intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure. Crit Care Med 25:1059–1062
