首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Physiology >CrossTalk opposing view: There is not added benefit to providing permissive hypercapnia in the treatment of ARDS
【24h】

CrossTalk opposing view: There is not added benefit to providing permissive hypercapnia in the treatment of ARDS

机译:CrossTalk反对意见:在ARDS的治疗中提供允许的高碳酸血症并没有增加益处

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Current ventilator strategies for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) aim to impact lung function and clinical outcomes in several ways: low tidal volumes to minimize overdistension, titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to prevent alveolar derecruitment, and recruitment manoeuvres to promote parenchymal homogeneity. Among these interventions, only low tidal volume has been shown definitively to improve mortality from ARDS (Malhotra, 2007). During low tidal volume ventilation, practice varies substantially on whether to allow some degree of alveolar hypo-ventilation with incidental hypercapnic acidosis (Amato et al. 1998), or to increase respiratory rate to maintain alveolar ventilation, often requiring respiratory rates >30 breaths min"1 (Brower et al. 2000).
机译:当前用于急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的呼吸机策略旨在通过多种方式影响肺功能和临床结局:低潮气量以最大程度地减少过度扩张,滴定正呼气末正压(PEEP)以防止肺泡减少征招以及募集演习以促进实质同质性。在这些干预措施中,只有极低的潮气量已被证明可以最终提高ARDS的死亡率(Malhotra,2007年)。在低潮气量通气期间,对于允许肺泡通气不足并伴有高碳酸血症(Amato等人,1998年)或提高呼吸频率以维持肺泡通气(通常要求呼吸频率> 30分钟) “ 1(Brower et al。2000)。

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