RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prone position and PEEP can both improve oxygenation and other parameters, but their interaction has not been fully described. Limited data directly compare selection of mechanically "optimal" or "best" PEEP in both supine and prone positions, either with or without changes in chest wall compliance. To compare best PEEP in these varied conditions, we used an experimental ARDS model to compare the mechanical, gas exchange, and hemodynamic response to PEEP titration in supine and prone position with varied abdominal pressure. METHODS: Twelve adult swine underwent pulmonary saline lavage and injurious ventilation to simulate ARDS. We used a reversible model of intra-abdominal hypertension to alter chest wall compliance. Response to PEEP levels of 20,17,14,11, 8, and 5 cmH2O was evaluated under four conditions: supine, high abdominal pressure; prone, high abdominal pressure; supine, low abdominal pressure; and prone, low abdominal pressure. Using lung compliance determined with esophageal pressure, we recorded the "best PEEP" and its corresponding target value. Data were evaluated for relationships among abdominal pressure, PEEP, and position using three-way analysis of variance and a linear mixed model with Tukey adjustment. RESULTS: Prone position and PEEP independently improved lung compliance (P < .0001). There was no interaction. As expected, intra-abdominal hypertension increased the PEEP needed for the best lung compliance (P < .0001 supine, P = .007 prone). However, best PEEP was not significantly different between prone (12.8 ± 2.4 cmH2O) and supine (11.0 ± 4.2 cmH2O) positions when targeting lung compliance CONCLUSIONS: Despite complementary mechanisms, prone position and appropriate PEEP exert their positive effects on lung mechanics independently of each other.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In emergent situations, access to the vascular bed is frequently required for fluid and medication administration. Central venous catheter placement is associated with risk and may slow resuscitation in the unstable patient. The purpose of this study was to determine whether intraosseous pressure (IOP) could be consistently recorded and how similar this pressure was to central venous and arterial pressure in a porcine hemorrhagic shock model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After sedation, eight female swine had catheters placed in the femoral vein, aorta via femoral artery, and superior vena cava. IOP lines were placed in the proximal humerus, distal femur, and proximal tibia. Pressure readings were recorded continuously through the five stages of progressive hypovolemia. Pressure data were descriptively summarized, with the percent of change of IOP at each stage compared with arterial pressure using a multilevel mixed effects linear model with log transformation. RESULTS: The IOP baseline values were between 16 and 18 mm Hg, approximately 22% of baseline arterial pressure. The intraosseous (IO) waveform mostly closely resembled the arterial pressure waveform, including the presence of a dichroitic notch. Pressure variations caused by ventilation (respiratory variability) were also identified in all the tracings. The rate of pressure change in the humeral IO most closely matched the change in arterial pressure rate. IO blood gas analysis showed gas composition to most closely match venous blood. CONCLUSIONS: IOP was reliably obtained in this porcine model and suggests potential for clinical application in humans.