High-frequency oscillatory ventilation guided by transpulmonary pressure in acute respiratory syndrome: an experimental study in pigs

• Main Authors: Philipp Klapsing, Onnen Moerer, Christoph Wende, Peter Herrmann, Michael Quintel, Annalen Bleckmann, Jan Florian Heuer
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2018-05-01
• Series: Critical Care
• Subjects: Volume controlled ventilation; HFOV; Transpulmonary pressure; Aerated lung tissue; Oxygenation; Hemodynamics
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-018-2028-7

Abstract Background Recent clinical studies have not shown an overall benefit of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), possibly due to injurious or non-individualized HFOV settings. We compared conventional HFOV (HFOVcon) settings with HFOV settings based on mean transpulmonary pressures (PLmean) in an animal model of experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods ARDS was induced in eight pigs by intrabronchial installation of hydrochloric acid (0.1 N, pH 1.1; 2.5 ml/kg body weight). The animals were initially ventilated in volume-controlled mode with low tidal volumes (6 ml kg− 1) at three positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels (5, 10, 20 cmH2O) followed by HFOVcon and then HFOV PLmean each at PEEP 10 and 20. The continuous distending pressure (CDP) during HFOVcon was set at mean airway pressure plus 5 cmH2O. For HFOV PLmean it was set at mean PL plus 5 cmH2O. Baseline measurements were obtained before and after induction of ARDS under volume controlled ventilation with PEEP 5. The same measurements and computer tomography of the thorax were then performed under all ventilatory regimens at PEEP 10 and 20. Results Cardiac output, stroke volume, mean arterial pressure and intrathoracic blood volume index were significantly higher during HFOV PLmean than during HFOVcon at PEEP 20. Lung density, total lung volume, and normally and poorly aerated lung areas were significantly greater during HFOVcon, while there was less over-aerated lung tissue in HFOV PLmean. The groups did not differ in oxygenation or extravascular lung water index. Conclusion HFOV PLmean is associated with less hemodynamic compromise and less pulmonary overdistension than HFOVcon. Despite the increase in non-ventilated lung areas, oxygenation improved with both regimens. An individualized approach with HFOV settings based on transpulmonary pressure could be a useful ventilatory strategy in patients with ARDS. Providing alveolar stabilization with HFOV while avoiding harmful distending pressures and pulmonary overdistension might be a key in the context of ventilator-induced lung injury.