JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stayer, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Andropoulos, D. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stayer, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Andropoulos, D. B.
Anesth Analg 2000;91:1145-1150
© 2000 International Anesthesia Research Society

PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA

Pressure Control Ventilation: Three Anesthesia Ventilators Compared Using an Infant Lung Model

Stephen A. Stayer, MD, Sabrina T. Bent, MD, Barbara S. Skjonsby, RN, Anna Frolov, MS, and Dean B. Andropoulos, MD

Department of Anesthesiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, Texas

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Stephen Stayer, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Texas Children’s Hospital, 6621 Fannin, Suite 310, Mailcode 2-1495, Houston, TX 77030. Address e-mail to sstayer{at}bcm.tmc.edu

We compared three ventilators—Servo 900C (Siemens Medical Systems, Danvers, MA), Aestiva 3000 (Datex-Ohmeda, Madison, WI), and NAD 6000 (North American Dräger, Telford, PA)—set to deliver pressure control ventilation using an infant test lung model. Ventilator settings were selected to test "near-maximum" settings that would be used for a neonatal patient (peak inspiratory pressure [PIP] 30 cm H2O) or older child (PIP 60 cm H2O). When adjusted for set inspiratory pressure and compliance, the average tidal volume (Vt) produced by the NAD 6000 was 5.8 mL less than the Servo 900C (P = 0.103), and the average Vt produced by the Aestiva 3000 was 18.9 mL less than the Servo 900C (P < 0.001). The Servo 900C generated increased peak pressures, tending to overshoot the set maximum inflating pressures, especially during rapid respiratory rates with decreased inspiratory times. The Aestiva 3000 did not achieve the set PIP during testing conditions of decreased inspiratory times, and the NAD 6000 was not greatly affected by changes in inspiratory time. All three ventilators measured expiratory Vt to be larger than the actual Vt delivered to the lung; however, the NAD 6000 was more accurate.

Implications: There are differences in performance of ventilators when set to deliver pressure control ventilation to an infant test lung model.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
P. R. Bachiller, J. M. McDonough, and J. M. Feldman
Do New Anesthesia Ventilators Deliver Small Tidal Volumes Accurately During Volume-Controlled Ventilation?
Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2008; 106(5): 1392 - 1400.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2000 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.