[The clinical effect of airway pressure release ventilation for acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS), to evaluate the extent of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), and to explore its possible mechanism.

METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in the Department of Critical Care Medicine of the First Hospital of Hebei Medical University from December 2010 to February 2012. The patients with ALI/ARDS were enrolled. They were randomly divided into two groups. The patients in APRV group were given APRV pattern, while those in control group were given lung protection ventilation, synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure (SIMV+PEEP). All patients were treated with AVEA ventilator. The parameters such as airway peak pressure (Ppeak), mean airway pressure (Pmean), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), central venous pressure (CVP), arterial blood gas, urine output (UO), the usage of sedation and muscle relaxation drugs were recorded. AVEA ventilator "turning point (Pflex) operation" was used to describe the quasi-static pressure volume curve (P-V curve). High and low inflection point (UIP, LIP) and triangular Pflex volume (Vdelta) were automatically measured and calculated. The ventilation parameters were set, and the 24-hour P-V curve was recorded again in order to be compared with subsequent results. Venous blood was collected before treatment, 24 hours and 48 hours after ventilation to measure lung surfactant protein D (SP-D) and large molecular mucus in saliva (KL-6) by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the correlation between the above two parameters and prognosis on 28 days was analyzed by multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with ALI/ARDS were enrolled, and 22 of them completed the test with 10 in APRV group and 12 in control group. The basic parameters and P-V curves between two groups were similar before the test. After 24 hours and 48 hours, mechanical ventilation was given in both groups. The patients' oxygenation was improved significantly, though there were no significant changes in hemodynamic parameters. The Pmean (cmH2O, 1 cmH2O = 0.098 kPa) in APRV group was significantly higher than that in control group (24 hours: 24.20±4.59 vs. 17.50±3.48, P < 0.01; 48 hours: 18.10±4.30 vs. 15.00±2.59, P < 0.05). After ventilation for 24 hours, the ratio of patients with increased Vdelta in APRV group was higher than that in control group (90% vs. 75%), but without statistical difference (P > 0.05). The SP-D level (μg/L) in serum in APRV group showed a tendency of increase (increased from 19.70±7.34 to 27.61±10.21, P < 0.05), in contrast there was a tendency of decrease in control group (decreased from 21.83±7.31 to 16.58±2.90, P > 0.05), the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). After 48-hour ventilation, SP-D in APRV group was decreased, but no change was found in control group, and no significant difference was found as compared with that of the control group (16.45±8.17 vs. 17.20±4.59, P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in serum KL-6 between the two groups before and after ventilation. The SP-D and KL-6 levels in serum were unrelated with 28-day survival rate of the patients. The odds ratio (OR) of SP-D were 0.900 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 0.719-1.125], 1.054 (95%CI = 0.878-1.266), 1.143 (95%CI = 0.957-1.365), and the OR of KL-6 were 1.356 (95%CI = 0.668-2.754), 0.658 (95%CI = 0.161-2.685), 0.915 (95%CI = 0.350-2.394) before the test, 24 hours and 48 hours after ventilation (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS: APRV was similar to lung protective ventilation strategy in oxygenation and improvements in the lung mechanics parameters. APRV with a higher Pmean can recruit alveolar more effectively, and it had no impact on hemo-dynamics, but might exacerbate VILI.