High frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) has no better haemodynamic tolerance than controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) in cardiogenic shock.
Six patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock were studied in order to compare the haemodynamic tolerance of controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) and high frequency jet ventilation (HFJV). The comparative analysis of the two techniques was performed with the same levels of PaO2 (CMV: 101 +/- 13 mmHg; HFJV: 104.2 +/- 14 p = ns); and PaCO2 (CMV: 37 +/- 1.7; HFJV: 35.7 +/- 1.4 p = ns). In this situation the values of mean airway pressure (Paw) did not differ significantly (CMV: 13 +/- 3 cm H2O; HFJV: 12.6 +/- 3.8 cm H2O) and no statistically significant difference in haemodynamic values was observed. These results demonstrate that in patients with cardiogenic shock, there is no difference between HFJV and CMV in terms of haemodynamic tolerance. Because of the more difficult clinical management of HFJV, this technique does not seem indicated as ventilatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock states.
Crimi
G
G
Institute of Anaesthesiology and Resuscitation, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
Conti
G
G
Bufi
M
M
Antonelli
M
M
de Blasi
R A
RA
Mattia
C
C
Romano
R
R
Gasparetto
A
A
D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D006439:Hemodynamics; D006611:High-Frequency Jet Ventilation; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009203:Myocardial Infarction / Q000150:complications / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy; D012121:Respiration, Artificial; D012770:Shock, Cardiogenic / Q000209:etiology / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy*