Right over left ventricular end-diastolic area relevance to predict hemodynamic intolerance of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in patients with severe ARDS

Annals of Intensive Care

Table 3 Evolution of the respiratory and gazometric parameters during the study

	CMV_pre	HFOV connection	H_{1 HFOV}	H_{3 HFOV}
Concerned patients number	24	24	23	19
mPaw (cm H₂O)	19 ± 3^b,c,d	29 ± 1^a	28 ± 1^a	29 ± 1^a
Frequency (Hz)	NA	6.0 ± 0.0^d	6.0 ± 0.0^d	5.2 ± 1.3^b,c
Amplitude (cm H₂O)	NA	88 ± 13	86 ± 12	85 ± 12
Pressure amplitude of oscillation (%)	NA	80 ± 0	79 ± 4	79 ± 5
pH	7.24 ± 0.14^d	NA	7.25 ± 0.16	7.30 ± 0.17^a
PaCO₂ (mmHg)	53 ± 15^d	NA	49 ± 19^a	47 ± 15^a
Bicarbonate (mmol L⁻¹)	24 ± 5	NA	23 ± 6	24 ± 4
Base excess (mmol L⁻¹)	−6 ± 6^d	NA	−6 ± 7^d	−4 ± 5^a,c
P/F ratio	89 ± 23^c,d	NA	171 ± 106^a	177 ± 96^a
OI	26 ± 8^d	NA	26 ± 17^d	23 ± 15^a,c
ELWI (mL/kg PBW)	19 ± 7	19 ± 7	19 ± 7	17 ± 6
PVPI	5.1 ± 1.7	5.2 ± 1.8	5.1 ± 1.5	5.1 ± 1.7

Results are given as mean ± SD
CMV conventional mechanical ventilation, HFOV high frequency oscillation ventilation, mPaw mean airway pressure, FiO ₂ fraction of inspired oxygen, P/F ratio of arterial oxygen concentration to the fraction of inspired oxygen, OI oxygenation index calculated as (mean airway pressure × FiO₂)/PaO₂, ELWI extravascular lung water index, PBW predicted body weight, PVPI pulmonary vascular permeability index
^a p < 0.05 for all data as compared to CMV_pre
^b p < 0.05 for all data as compared to HFOV connection
^c p < 0.05 for all data as compared to H₁ _HFOV
^d p < 0.05 for all data as compared to H₃ _HFOV