Chest
Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation: A New Approach to Weaning Patients from Mechanical Ventilators
Section snippets
RATIONALE AND THEORETIC ADVANTAGES OF IMV
Intermittent mandatory ventilation decreases the complexity and amount of equipment required for mechanical respiratory support and subsequent weaning. With the IMV assembly, it is not necessary to switch equipment or to utilize a separate device to provide PEEP during weaning. In addition, the intricate and expensive sigh and assist mechanisms incorporated into many recently marketed ventilators are unnecessary. Weaning with IMV also lessens the necessity for ventilatory measurements, and
CASE 1
A 62-year-old woman with chronic obstructive lung disease sustained a fractured pelvis, clavicle, and second rib, a ruptured urinary bladder, laceration of the liver, and right-sided tension pneumothorax in an automobile accident. During induction of general anesthesia, she vomited and aspirated liquid gastric contents. She was given methylprednisolone sodium succinate (Solu-Medrol) 2 gm intravenously, and after operation her respirations were assisted with a volume-limited ventilator (MA-1,
COMMENT
The above six cases represent weaning problems of varying etiology. The first two patients had severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and resultant CO2 retention. Abrupt discontinuation of mechanical ventilation resulted in anxiety, tachypnea, and CO2 retention in both cases. The gradual discontinuation of mechanical ventilation with IMV was successful in both cases. The third, fourth and fifth patients developed hypoxemia when subjected to “Tee-piece” trials, but not with IMV and PEEP.
References (8)
- et al.
Ventilation-perfusion inequalities resulting from hypocapnic changes in lung mechanics
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
(1972) - et al.
Acute respiratory failure in the surgical patient
- et al.
- et al.
Atelectasis and shunting during spontaneous ventilation in anesthetized patients
Anesthesiology
(1964)
Cited by (0)
Supported in part by an NIH Research Training Grant 5 T01 GM00427-12.
Manuscript received February 1; revision accepted March 29, 1973.