help button home button
AJRCCM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by FUJINO, Y.
Right arrow Articles by KACMAREK, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by FUJINO, Y.
Right arrow Articles by KACMAREK, R. M.

Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., Volume 162, Number 2, August 2000, 650-657

Partial Liquid Ventilation Ventilates Better than Gas Ventilation

YUJI FUJINO, SVEN GODDON, JEAN-DANIEL CHICHE, JONATHAN HROMI, and ROBERT M. KACMAREK

Respiratory Care Department Laboratory and the Department of Anesthesia, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massuchusetts

Partial liquid ventilation (PLV) improves oxygenation in several models of lung injury. However, PLV has only been compared with conventional gas ventilation (GV) with low PEEP. Both PLV and GV can markedly improve oxygenation when PEEP is set above the lower corner pressure (Plc) on the inspiratory pressure-volume (P-V) curve of the total respiratory system. We questioned if the use of PEEP set above the Plc during PLV and GV would result in similar gas exchange. Lung injury was induced in 12 sheep by saline lavage before randomization to PLV (n = 6) or GV (n = 6). Animals in the PLV group were filled with perflubron (22 ml/kg) until a meniscus at the teeth was observed. Both groups were then ventilated with pressure control (FIO2, 1.0; rate, 20/min; I:E, 1:1) and PEEP (1 cm H2O above the Plc on the inspiratory P-V curve). Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) was limited to 35 cm H2O. Animals were ventilated for 5 h and then killed for histologic examinations. All 12 animals survived the 5-h ventilation period. After increasing PEEP above Plc, PaO2 increased significantly (p < 0.01) in both the GV and the PLV groups, but it did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.86) at any time during the experiment. PaCO2 and VD/VT in GV increased markedly throughout the experiment after increasing PEEP (p < 0.001), but there was no significant change in PaCO2 in PLV (p = 0.13). Mean arterial blood pressure, mean pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, and central venous pressure, increased and SVR decreased in GV (p < 0.05). The extent and the severity of lung injury in the dependent regions was greater in the GV group (p < 0.05). Both PLV and GV improved oxygenation, but PLV resulted in better ventilation than GV while preserving lung structure when PEEP was set 1 cm H2O above the Plc and PIP limited to 35 cm H2O.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
P. L. J. Degraeuwe and L. J. I. Zimmermann
Why Partial Liquid Ventilation Did Not Fulfill Its Promise
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., September 1, 2006; 174(5): 615 - 615.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
M. J. TOBIN
Critical Care Medicine in AJRCCM 2000
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., October 15, 2001; 164(8): 1347 - 1361.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.
Copyright © 2000 American Thoracic Society 		  SOTA, FL