ET tubes and Peep

gonefishing

gonefishing

Forum Deputy Chief
Messages
1,374
Reaction score
412
Points
83
Anyone have any thoughts or input on this? LOL
873b9747d58e40d7c4efe389a0f7931e.jpg


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Normal physiologic PEEP is around 2, but I don't know that the glottis is the primary cause of that resistance to expiratory flow.

I also don't know that the resistance offered by an ETT and ambu bag can't equal the resistance of the glottis. Maybe, maybe not. Too many variables, I think, to make such a blanket statement.
 
Ah, to PEEP or not to PEEP that is the question...

So we just sat through a weeks worth of in-service on our new ventilator, and in talking with the rep providing our in-service, it would appear thaf PEEP as a whole really isn't as harmful as once suspected. Are there still parts of the country, or providers apprehensive to dial PEEP up to say 20? Sure.

I am sure that there are others on here that can break it down further or pull up some studies citing the relationship of the ET tube and it's relevance to PEEP, but for what it's worth, I think that is a poorly worded question.
 
Isn't physiologic PEEP a mean of alveolar pressure averaged over inspiration and expiration? So on inspiration Palv would be -3 and expiration it would be 5 as an example....I'd think it would take more than an ETT let alone vocal cords to have any clinically relevant effect on PEEP. I guess I'd sum it up by saying "who cares?"

What'd I miss?
 
VentMonkey said:
Ah, to PEEP or not to PEEP that is the question...

So we just sat through a weeks worth of in-service on our new ventilator, and in talking with the rep providing our in-service, it would appear that PEEP as a whole really isn't as harmful as once suspected. QUOTE]

I'd go so far as to say than no PEEP is harmful. In healthy lungs, I'm finding myself giving 8 of PEEP as a matter of routine, or as directed by measured by auto-peep if I have the capability with diseased lungs.
Click to expand...
 
I'd go so far as to say I absolutely agree, but for whatever reason, in my region this thought process is still not all that well recepted.
 
I wouldn't say no PEEP is harmful. Certainly in someone with healthy lungs, it's pretty hard to hurt them. But generally speaking, the lowest pressure you can use and keep full recruitment, the better.
 
Remi said:
I wouldn't say no PEEP is harmful. Certainly in someone with healthy lungs, it's pretty hard to hurt them. But generally speaking, the lowest pressure you can use and keep full recruitment, the better.
Click to expand...

I think the idea of atelectrauma from alveolar instability over the respiratory cycle is behind the strategies of avoiding ventilator induced lung injury. Without PEEP, when the atelectasis occurs, the alveoli "pop" open causing shear stress and inflammation. Over time it causes lung injury.
 
E tank said:
I think the idea of atelectrauma from alveolar instability over the respiratory cycle is behind the strategies of avoiding ventilator induced lung injury. Without PEEP, when the atelectasis occurs, the alveoli "pop" open causing shear stress and inflammation. Over time it causes lung injury.
Click to expand...

Little misunderstanding on my part here.

A few posts up someone said "I'd go so far as to say that no PEEP is harmful". Because that statement was followed up with "I use 8 of PEEP as a matter of routine", I thought what was meant by "no PEEP is harmful" was "even very high levels of PEEP are not harmful", rather than "PEEP of 0 is harmful".

So when I wrote "I wouldn't say no PEEP is harmful", what I meant was "I wouldn't say that unnecessarily high levels of PEEP can't contribute to harm". My bad.

ARDSnet does call for starting at a PEEP of 5 and basically only increasing it as necessary - just like fi02 - with the reasoning being that mean airway pressure should ideally be kept low. The only time I use more than 5 in the OR is if they need it because their lungs are bad, or during laparoscopic cases when the abdomen is insufflated, especially when they are obese, and especially when they are in a head-down position, and in those cases I generally start at 8. But of course I've used much higher than that, both in anesthesia and during transport.
 
Last edited:
Remi said:
Little misunderstanding here.

A few posts up someone said "I'd go so far as to say that no PEEP is harmful". Because that statement was followed up with "I use 8 of PEEP as a matter of routine", I thought what was meant by "no PEEP is harmful" was "even very high levels of PEEP are not harmful", rather than "PEEP of 0 is harmful".

So when I wrote "I wouldn't say no PEEP is harmful", what I meant was "I wouldn't say that unnecessarily high levels of PEEP can't contribute to harm".

My bad.

ARDSnet does call for starting at a PEEP of 5 and basically only increasing it as necessary,- just like fi02 - with the reasoning being that mean airway pressure should ideally be kept as low. The only time I use more than 5 in the OR is if they need it because their lungs are bad, or during laparoscopic cases when the abdomen is insufflated, especially when they are obese, and especially when they are in a head-down position, and in those cases I generally start at 8. But of course I've used much higher than that, both in anesthesia and during transport.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for your input!

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
I don't know if it's current trends or not, but what I was referring to was the increases in PEEP patients are being left at depending on their condition, and the fact that they're finding that these increases---even if sustained---don't necessarily produce the level of volutrauma or barotrauma which once suspected, prevented such patients from receiving higher PEEP parameters in order to improve oxygenation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23740697/
 
VentMonkey said:
I don't know if it's current trends or not, but what I was referring to was the increases in PEEP patients are being left at depending on their condition, and the fact that they're finding that these increases---even if sustained---don't necessarily produce the level of volutrauma or barotrauma which once suspected, prevented such patients from receiving higher PEEP parameters in order to improve oxygenation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23740697/
Click to expand...

One of the problems with teasing out issues like "low" tidal volumes and varying PEEP is how these things are defined in various studies. They differ quite a bit from study to study. Consensus (for what it's worth) seems to be "some PEEP" and peak pressures less than 30 to avoid VILI, most of which comes from the ARDS net protocols. But those protocols are for folks with lung injury, so applying that to patients that don't is sort of up for grabs. So for me, 7 ml per kg PBW and 8 of PEEP and .4-.6 fiO2 is my routine for "healthy" patients.
 
E tank said:
One of the problems with teasing out issues like "low" tidal volumes and varying PEEP is how these things are defined in various studies. They differ quite a bit from study to study. Consensus (for what it's worth) seems to be "some PEEP" and peak pressures less than 30 to avoid VILI, most of which comes from the ARDS net protocols. But those protocols are for folks with lung injury, so applying that to patients that don't is sort of up for grabs. So for me, 7 ml per kg PBW and 8 of PEEP and .4-.6 fiO2 is my routine for "healthy" patients.
Click to expand...
Yes, our current ventilator protocols dictate managing patients based on their condition, whether suspected or confirmed

Again, with no clinical insight it would appear to me that one doesn't have much business dealing with ventilator management, let alone adjusting parameters on their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top