首页> 外文期刊>The New England journal of medicine >Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network (see comments)
【24h】

Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network (see comments)

机译:与传统的潮气量相比,急性肺损伤和急性呼吸窘迫综合征的通气量更低。急性呼吸窘迫综合症网络(请参阅评论)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Traditional approaches to mechanical ventilation use tidal volumes of 10 to 15 ml per kilogram of body weight and may cause stretch-induced lung injury in patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. We therefore conducted a trial to determine whether ventilation with lower tidal volumes would improve the clinical outcomes in these patients. METHODS: Patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized trial. The trial compared traditional ventilation treatment, which involved an initial tidal volume of 12 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and an airway pressure measured after a 0.5-second pause at the end of inspiration (plateau pressure) of 50 cm of water or less, with ventilation with a lower tidal volume, which involved an initial tidal volume of 6 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and a plateau pressure of 30 cm of water or less. The primary outcomes were death before a patient was discharged home and was breathing without assistance and the number of days without ventilator use from day 1 to day 28. RESULTS: The trial was stopped after the enrollment of 861 patients because mortality was lower in the group treated with lower tidal volumes than in the group treated with traditional tidal volumes (31.0 percent vs. 39.8 percent, P=0.007), and the number of days without ventilator use during the first 28 days after randomization was greater in this group (mean [+/-SD], 12+/-11 vs. 10+/-11; P=0.007). The mean tidal volumes on days 1 to 3 were 6.2+/-0.8 and 11.8+/-0.8 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight (P<0.001), respectively, and the mean plateau pressures were 25+/-6 and 33+/-8 cm of water (P<0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation with a lower tidal volume than is traditionally used results in decreased mortality and increases the number of days without ventilator use.
机译:背景:传统的机械通气方法使用的潮气量为每公斤体重10到15毫升,并可能在患有急性肺损伤和急性呼吸窘迫综合征的患者中引起牵张性肺损伤。因此,我们进行了一项试验,以确定低潮气量通气是否会改善这些患者的临床结局。方法:将急性肺损伤和急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者纳入一项多中心随机试验。该试验比较了传统的通气治疗方法,该方法涉及初始潮气量为每公斤预测体重12毫升,在吸气结束时停顿0.5秒(高原压力)等于或小于50厘米水,然后测量气道压力,进行低潮气量的通气,其初始潮气量为每公斤预测体重6毫升,平稳压力为30厘米水或更小。主要结局是患者出院回家,无助呼吸和在第1天至第28天不使用呼吸机的天数。结果:该试验入组861例患者,因为该组死亡率较低,因此停止潮气量比传统潮气治疗组低(31.0%vs. 39.8%,P = 0.007),并且在随机分组后的前28天内不使用呼吸机的天数在该组中更大(平均值[ +/- SD],12 +/- 11与10 +/- 11; P = 0.007)。第1至第3天的平均潮气量分别为每千克预测体重6.2 +/- 0.8和11.8 +/- 0.8 ml(P <0.001),平均高原压力为25 +/- 6和33+ / -8厘米水(P <0.001)。结论:在患有急性肺损伤和急性呼吸窘迫综合征的患者中,潮气量低于传统方式的机械通气可降低死亡率,并增加不使用呼吸机的天数。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号