Intravenous versus inhalational anaesthesia and lung ventilation–perfusion matching

Author:

Peyton Philip J123ORCID,Marsh Harry2,Thompson Bruce R4

Affiliation:

1. Anaesthesia, Perioperative and Pain Medicine Unit, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

2. Department of Anaesthesia, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia

3. Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Melbourne, Australia

4. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Alfred Health, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Lung gas exchange efficiency deteriorates during general anaesthesia due to ventilation–perfusion ( V/Q) scatter. Propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) may preserve V/Q matching better than inhalational agents. We compared V/Q matching in patients randomized to either TIVA or sevoflurane anaesthesia, using deadspace and shunt measurements and the MIGET (Multiple Inert Gas Elimination Technique). Baseline arterial blood and mixed expired gas sampling was done before induction and repeated after one to two hours of relaxant general anaesthesia in 20 patients, supine with controlled ventilation at an FiO2 of 0.3 and a target end-tidal PCO2 of 30–35 mmHg. Blood samples for MIGET were processed after headspace equilibration by gas chromatography. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the two groups in the change from baseline of absolute difference between log standard deviation of ventilation and blood flow distributions (∂(σV−σQ)). Deadspace fraction increased and PaO2/FiO2 ratio decreased across both groups overall with anaesthesia, but change in deadspace was not different between groups (mean (standard deviation, SD) sevoflurane 21.8% (11.7%) versus TIVA 20.5% (10.6%), P = 0.601). Change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio was also similar between groups (mean (SD) sevoflurane −51.9 (69.1) mmHg versus TIVA −78.3 (76.9) mmHg, P = 0.43), as was change in shunt fraction (δQs/Qt mean (SD) sevoflurane −5.1% (12.6%) versus TIVA 0.4% (7.7%), P = 0.174). The primary endpoint ∂(σV−σQ) was not different between sevoflurane and propofol TIVA groups (mean (SD) 0.17 (0.81) versus 0.17 (0.29), P = 0.94). TIVA did not better preserve V/Q matching in patients undergoing anaesthesia with controlled ventilation compared with sevoflurane.

Funder

Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3