Advanced Biomedical Research

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2017  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 52-

The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units


Babak Ali Kiaei1, Parviz Kashefi1, Seyed Taghi Hashemi1, Daryoush Moradi1, Ahmad Mobasheri2 
1 Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan, Iran
2 Medical School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Seyed Taghi Hashemi
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Iran

Background: The conventional method for ventilation is supported by accommodative or adaptive support ventilation (ASV) that the latter method is done with two methods: ASV minute ventilation (mv): 110% and ASV mv: 120%. Regarding these methods this study compared the differences in duration of mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic changes during recovery and length of stay in Intensive Care Units (ICU). Materials and Methods: In a clinical trial study, forty patients candidate for ventilation were selected and randomly divided into two groups of A and B. All patients were ventilated by Rafael ventilator. Ventilator parameters were set on ASV mv: 110% or ASV mv: 120% and patients were monitored on pulse oximetry, electrocardiography monitoring, central vein pressure and arterial pressure. Finally, the data entered to computer and analyzed by SPSS software. Results: The time average of connection to ventilator in two groups in modes of ASV mv: 110% and 120% was 12.3 ± 3.66 and 10.8 ± 2.07 days respectively, and according to t-test, there was no significant difference between two groups (P = 0.11). The average of length of stay in ICU in two groups of 110% and 120% was 16.35 ± 3.51 and 15.5 ± 2.62 days respectively, and according to t-test, there found to be no significant difference between two groups (P = 0.41). Conclusion: Using ASV mv: 120% can decrease extubation time compared with ASV mv: 110%. Furthermore, there is not a considerable side effect on hemodynamic of patients.


How to cite this article:
Kiaei BA, Kashefi P, Hashemi ST, Moradi D, Mobasheri A. The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units.Adv Biomed Res 2017;6:52-52


How to cite this URL:
Kiaei BA, Kashefi P, Hashemi ST, Moradi D, Mobasheri A. The Comparison Effects of Two Methods of (Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 110% and Adaptive Support Ventilation Minute Ventilation: 120%) on Mechanical Ventilation and Hemodynamic Changes and Length of being in Recovery in Intensive Care Units. Adv Biomed Res [serial online] 2017 [cited 2020 Oct 25 ];6:52-52
Available from: https://www.advbiores.net/article.asp?issn=2277-9175;year=2017;volume=6;issue=1;spage=52;epage=52;aulast=Kiaei;type=0