Partial Liquid Ventilation in Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Robert M. Kacmarek(Health Care Foundation), Herbert Wiedemann(Health Care Foundation), Philip T. Lavin(Health Care Foundation), Mark K. Wedel(Health Care Foundation), Ahmet Tütüncü(Health Care Foundation), Arthur S. Slutsky(Health Care Foundation)
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
October 27, 2005
Cited by 164

Abstract

RATIONALE: Despite recent clinical trials demonstrating improved outcome in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mortality remains high. Partial liquid ventilation (PLV) using perfluorocarbons has been shown to improve oxygenation and decrease lung injury in various animal models. OBJECTIVE: To determine if PLV would have an impact on outcome in patients with ARDS. METHODS: Patients with ARDS were randomized to (1) conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV; n=107), (2) "low-dose" perfluorocarbon (10 ml/kg; n=99), and (3) "high-dose" perfluorocarbon (20 ml/kg; n=105). Patients in all three groups were ventilated using volume ventilation, Vt <or= 10 ml/kg predicted body weight, rate <or= 25/min, inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio <or= 1:1, Fi(O(2)) >or= 0.5, and positive end-expiratory pressure >or= 13 cm H(2)O. RESULTS: The 28-d mortality in the CMV group was 15%, versus 26.3% in the low-dose (p=0.06) and 19.1% in the high-dose (p=0.39) PLV groups. There were more ventilator-free days in the CMV group (13.0+/-9.3) compared with both the low-dose (7.4+/-8.5; p<0.001) and high-dose (9.9+/-9.1; p=0.043) groups. There were more pneumothoraces, hypoxic episodes, and hypotensive episodes in the PLV patients. CONCLUSIONS: PLV at both high and low doses did not improve outcome in ARDS compared with CMV and cannot be recommended for patients with ARDS.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis