Drainage of pleural effusion in mechanically ventilated patients: time to measure chest wall compliance? Paolo Formenti MD, Michele Umbrello MD, Ilaria Piva MD, Giovanni Mistraletti MD, Matteo Zaniboni MD, Paolo Spanu MD, Andrea Noto MD, John J. Marini MD, Gaetano Iapichino MD PII: DOI: Reference:

S0883-9441(14)00147-6 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.04.009 YJCRC 51501

To appear in:

Journal of Critical Care

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

26 January 2014 19 April 2014 20 April 2014

Please cite this article as: Formenti Paolo, Umbrello Michele, Piva Ilaria, Mistraletti Giovanni, Zaniboni Matteo, Spanu Paolo, Noto Andrea, Marini John J., Iapichino Gaetano, Drainage of pleural effusion in mechanically ventilated patients: time to measure chest wall compliance?, Journal of Critical Care (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.04.009

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Drainage of pleural effusion in mechanically ventilated patients: time to

T

measure chest wall compliance?

RI P

Paolo Formenti, MD*a; Michele Umbrello, MD*a; Ilaria Piva, MDb; Giovanni Mistraletti, MDa,b; Matteo Zaniboni, MDc; Paolo Spanu, MDa; Andrea Noto, MDa; John J. Marini, MDd;

MA NU

SC

Gaetano Iapichino, MD a,b.

From the: aUnità Operativa di Anestesia e Rianimazione, Azienda Ospedaliera San Paolo – Polo Universitario, Milano, Italy; bDipartimento di Fisiopatologia Medico-Chirurgica e dei Trapianti, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy; cDipartimento di Neuroscienze,

ED

Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda, Milan, Italy ; dDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Minnesota, Regions Hospital, St. Paul, MN, USA,

CE

PT

*these authors equally contributed to the present paper

AC

running title: effects of pleural effusion drainage

Take Home message: Optimal management of pleural effusion in mechanically-ventilated patients is currently undefined. Neither drainage nor increase in airway pressure seem to have any impact on the in unselected population. We suggest chest wall mechanics, as this might help in the management.

Tweet: If there is reason to suspect reduced CCW values, drainage could have a positive impact on gas exchange and respiratory mechanics Word Count. Text: 3100 Abstract: 271 1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Corresponding author and address for reprints:

T

Paolo Formenti, MD

RI P

Unità Operativa di Anestesia e Rianimazione A.O. San Paolo - Polo Universitario

Email [email protected]

Statement of Authorship

MA NU

Phone +39.02.50323134; Fax +39.02.50323137

SC

Via A. Di Rudinì, 8 - 20142 Milano - Italy

ED

Author contribution: PF conceived and designed the study, collected and recorded clinical

PT

data and drafted the first version of the manuscript; MU collected and recorded clinical data, analyzed and interpreted the data and helped to draft the manuscript; IP, AN, PS, GM

CE

performed the literature search, collected and recorded clinical data; MZ helped in the study

AC

design and contributed to results interpretations; JJM and GI revised the draft for important intellectual content. All the authors read and approved the final version; PF is the guarantor of the paper, taking responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from incepton to published article.

Conflict of Interest Statement No author has to disclose any potential conflict of interest.

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Funding sources This study was not supported by any specific research grant and was carried out with

RI P

T

departmental funding only.

Abstract

SC

Purpose: Pleural effusion is commonly encountered in mechanically-ventilated, critically-ill patients and is generally addressed with evacuation or by fluid displacement using increased

MA NU

airway pressure. However, except when massive or infected, clear evidence is lacking to guide its management. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of recruitment maneuvers and drainage of unilateral pleural effusion on respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and lung volume.

ED

Materials and methods: Fifteen critically ill and mechanically ventilated patients with

PT

unilateral pleural effusion were enrolled. A three-step protocol (baseline, recruitment, effusion drainage) was applied to patients with >400 ml of pleural effusion, as estimated by chest

CE

ultrasound. Predefined subgroup analysis compared patients with normal vs reduced chest

AC

wall compliance. Esophageal and airway pressures, respiratory system, lung and chest wall compliances, arterial blood gases and end-expiratory lung volumes were recorded. Results: In the whole case-mix, neither recruitment nor drainage improved gas exchange, lung volume or tidal mechanics. When chest wall compliance was normal, recruitment improved lung compliance (81.9 [64.8-104.1] vs. 103.7 [91.5-111.7] mL/cmH2O, p0.999

18.5±3.5

>0.999

15.8±2.4

>0.999

11.6±2.1

10.8±1.9

>0.999

52.0 [50.0-66.7]

58.3 [45-63]

0.460

90.9 [75.4-110.0]

85 [68-131]

0.420

131.9 [107.7-159]

126.7 [102.5-178.7]

0.770

73.6±8.8

72.2±8.2

0.864

95 [74-115]

85 [75-120]

0.765

10±4

10±4

0.812

7.37±0.07

0.741

113.4±37.6

135.1±56.3

0.225

226.7±74

277.8±75.8

0.078

PaCO2 (mmHg)

42.0 [39.9-49.9]

43.8 [40.4-54]

0.931

BE (mmol/L)

4.4±4.1

4.3±4.1

0.978

28.3 [25.3-30.7]

27.9 [23.9-30.7]

0.349

1697±498

1966±543

0.120

PaO2 (mmHg)

CE

P/F (mmHg)

AC

HCO3- (mmol/l) EELV (ml)

MA NU

ED

-1

PT

PEEP (cmH2O)

SC

400 [360-470]

Vt (ml)

Data are reported as mean±standard deviation if normally distributed, or median [interquartile range] if not. T1 = baseline; T2 = after recruitment maneuvers; T3 = 2 h after drainage; Vt = Tidal volume; PEEP = positive end expiration pressure; RR = respiratory rate; FiO2 = inspiratory fraction of O2; P PEAK = peak pressure; PPLAT = plateau pressure; PAW = airway pressure; CRS = respiratory system compliance; CL= lung compliance; CCW = chest wall compliance; MAP = mean arterial pressure; HR = heart rate; CVP = mean central venous pressure; P/F = PaO2/FiO2; BE = base excess; EELV = end expiration lung volume.

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Effects of recruitment on tidal mechanics: “ normal” vs. “abnormal” chest wall "abnormal" chest wall T2

T1

T2

PTP (cmH2O)

4.9 [4.3-6.0]

3.9 [3.2-4.8]*

5.5 [3.5-6.1]

4.8 [4.4-5.9]

PPLAT (cmH2O)

14.5 [12.5-17.0]

13.5 [12.5-15.5]

19.0 [16.0-20.0]°

18.0 [16.0-20.0]#

CL (ml/cmH2O)

81.9 [64.8-104.1]

103.7 [91.5-111.7]*

63.8 [63.5-113.6]

75.0 [70.1-90.9]#

CCW (ml/cmH2O)

160.7 [154.3-168.3]

149.4 [128.5-171.9]

97.4 [89.3-97.9]°

111.1 [84.4-142.4]#

CRS (ml/cmH2O)

58.5 [47.5-64.0]

63.4 [55.0-68.3]

42.7 [38.9-50.0]°

47.0 [42.2-50.0]#

SC

T

T1

RI P

"normal" chest wall

MA NU

Data are reported as median [interquartile range]. “Normal" chest wall: CCW ≥100 ml/cmH2O; "abnormal" chest wall: CCW

Drainage of pleural effusion in mechanically ventilated patients: time to measure chest wall compliance?

Pleural effusion (PE) is commonly encountered in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients and is generally addressed with evacuation or by flu...
334KB Sizes 0 Downloads 3 Views