Alveolar recruitment improves ventilatory efficiency of the lungs during anesthesia

• Published in: Canadian journal of anesthesia Vol. 51; no. 7; pp. 723 - 727
• Main Authors: TUSMAN, Gerardo, BÖHM, Stephan H, SUARCZ-SIPMANN, Fernando, TURCHETTO, Elsio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Toronto, ON Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society 01.08.2004; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Abdomen - surgery; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anesthesia; Anesthesia, General - adverse effects; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Biological and medical sciences; Breath tests; Carbon Dioxide - metabolism; Female; Humans; Lung - drug effects; Lung - physiopathology; Lung Volume Measurements - methods; Lungs; Male; Medical sciences; Oxygen - blood; Positive-Pressure Respiration - methods; Prospective Studies; Pulmonary Alveoli - physiology; Pulmonary Gas Exchange - drug effects; Pulmonary Ventilation - physiology; Respiration, Artificial - methods; Respiratory Dead Space - physiology; Ventilation; Vital Capacity - physiology; Anesthesia
• ISSN: 0832-610X; 1496-8975
• DOI: 10.1007/BF03018433

The goal of this study was to analyze the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), with and without a lung recruitment maneuver, on dead space. 16 anesthetized patients were sequentially studied in three steps: 1) without PEEP (ZEEP), 2) with 5 cm H(2)O of PEEP and 3) with 5 cm H(2)O of PEEP after an alveolar recruitment strategy (ARS). Ventilation was maintained constant. The single breath test of CO(2) (SBT-CO(2)), arterial oxygenation, end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and respiratory compliance were recorded every 30 min. Physiological dead space to tidal volume decreased after ARS (0.45 +/- 0.01) compared with ZEEP (0.50 +/- 0.07, P < 0.05) and PEEP (0.51 +/- 0.06, P < 0.05). The elimination of CO(2) per breath increased during PEEP (25 +/- 3.3 mL.min(-1)) and ARS (27 +/- 3.2 mL.min(-1)) compared to ZEEP (23 +/- 2.6 mL.min(-1), P < 0.05), although ARS showed larger values than PEEP (P < 0.05). Pa-etCO(2) difference was lower after recruitment (0.9 +/- 0.5 kPa, P < 0.05) compared to ZEEP (1.1 +/- 0.5 kPa) and PEEP (1.2 +/- 0.5 kPa). Slope II increased after ARS (63 +/- 11%/L, P < 0.05) compared with ZEEP (46 +/- 7.7%/L) and PEEP (56 +/- 10%/L). Slope III decreased significantly after recruitment (0.13 +/- 0.07 1/L) compared with ZEEP (0.21 +/- 0.11 1/L) and PEEP (0.18 +/- 0.10 1/L). The angle between slope II and III decreased only after ARS. After lung recruitment, PaO(2), EELV, and compliance increased significantly compared with ZEEP and PEEP. Lung recruitment improved the efficiency of ventilation in anesthetized patients.