Respiratory Muscle Performance, Pulmonary Mechanics, and Gas Exchange Between the BiPAP S/T-D System and the Servo Ventilator 900C With Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure Ventilation Following Gradual Pressure Support Weaning*

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Study objective

Our objective was to compare respiratory muscle performance, pulmonary mechanics, and gas exchange between the BiPAP S/T-D ventilation system (Respironics Inc; Murrysville, PA) and the Servo Ventilator 900C (Siemens-Elma AB; Sweden) with similar inspiratory and expiratory airway pressure in patients who are recovering from acute respiratory failure.

Study design

A prospective, randomized, clinical trial.

Setting

Medical ICU.

Patients and methods

We studied 27 medical patients on mechanical ventilators following gradual pressure support weaning. Each patient breathed while in the following equivalent modes: (a) an inspiratory pressure preset (pressure support mode) of 5 cm H2 O with an external positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 cm H2 O on the Servo Ventilator 900C and (b) an inspiratory pressure preset of 10 cm H2 O with an expiratory pressure preset of 5 cm H2 O on the BiPAP S/T-D. Using the CP-100 pulmonary monitor, we compared the total work of breathing (WOB), the pressure-time index (PTP), and other pulmonary mechanics and gas exchange parameters between the two modes.

Results

The WOB in joules per liter (mean +/- SE) (0.76 +/- 0.08 vs 0.73 +/- 0.08, p = 0.70), the WOB in joules per minute (8.62 +/- 1.06 vs 8.11 +/- 0.96, p = 0.60), and the PTP in cm H2 O/s/min (187 +/- 18 vs 167 +/- 18, p = 0.21) between the BiPAP S/T-D and the Servo Ventilator 900C were not statistically different. There were statistically significant differences between the two ventilators in auto-PEEP (1.34 +/- 0.37 vs 0.88 +/- 0.30 cm H2 O, p = 0.03), duty cycle (0.44 +/- 0.01 vs 0.37 +/- 0.01, p < 0.001), and expiratory airway resistance (11.81 +/- 1.53 vs 8.75 +/- 1.22 cm H2 O/L/s, p < 0.001), but not in respiratory rate (27.48 +/- 1.54 vs 28.06 +/- 1.61 breaths/min, p = 0.40) or in minute ventilation (10.43 +/- 0.59 vs 10.27 +/- 0.37 L/min, p = 0.66). There was a statistically significant difference in the ratio of PaO2 to the fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) (333 +/- 21 vs 300 +/- 22, p < 0.03) but not in PaCO2 (48 +/- 2 vs 47 +/- 2 mm Hg, p = 0.59) between the BiPAP S/T-D and the Servo Ventilator 900C.

Conclusions

Despite differences in initiating and maintaining the inspiratory and expiratory phases, in breathing circuits, and in ventilator circuits between the two ventilators, the performance of the BiPAP S/T-D is equally efficacious to that of a conventional mechanical ventilator in supporting respiratory muscles. Thus, the BiPAP S/T-D is safe and effective when used in mechanically ventilated patients recovering from acute respiratory failure who do not require total ventilatory support. (CHEST 1998; 114:1390-1396)

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles