Ultra-low tidal volume ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation shows no mitigating effect on pulmonary end-organ damage compared to standard ventilation: insights from a porcine model

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Table 2 Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters in group comparison

Parameter	Group	Baseline	T6	T20
HR	IPPV	62 ± 11	85 ± 17	84 ± 50
	ULTVV	63 ± 15	93 ± 27	111 ± 59
	Sham	65 ± 9	73 ± 17	72 ± 21
MAP	IPPV	67 ± 8	64 ± 6*	75 ± 13
	ULTVV	73 ± 6	60 ± 6*	62 ± 13
	Sham	78 ± 5	79 ± 16	74 ± 25
CVP	IPPV	7 ± 2	9 ± 5	9 ± 3
	ULTVV	8 ± 2	7 ± 2	8 ± 3
	Sham	7 ± 1	6 ± 1	5 ± 1
NE^a	IPPV	0 ± 0	0.069 ± 0.05*	0.044 ± 0.07*
	ULTVV	0 ± 0	0.187 ± 0.21*	0.971 ± 0.48*,#
	Sham	0 ± 0	0 ± 0	0 ± 0
CI^b	IPPV	3.37 ± 0.56	2.81 ± 0.44	2.90 ± .71
	ULTVV	3.80 ± 1.13	3.63 ± 1.14	3.86 ± 1.10
	Sham	3.62 ± 0.73	3.25 ± 0.08	4.40 ± 1.61
PaO₂	IPPV	212 ± 13	150 ± 46	173 ± 81
	ULTVV	198 ± 20	127 ± 17	93 ± 24
	Sham	189 ± 15	143 ± 32	103 ± 23

Mean (± SD). Group effects are analyzed by univariate ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni correction and in the case of norepinephrine by Kruskal–Wallis. There were no intergroup differences at baseline. n(IPPV) = 5; n(ULTVV) = 6; n(sham) = 5
HR heart rate, MAP mean arterial pressure, CVP central venous pressure, NE norepinephrine dosage, CI cardiac index, PaO₂ arterial partial pressure of oxygen, T_x time point, IPPV intermittent positive pressure ventilation, ULTVV ultra-low tidal volume ventilation
^a[µg kg BW⁻¹ min⁻¹]
^b(l min⁻¹) m²⁻¹
^*p < 0.05 intervention group vs. sham at the given time point
^#p < 0.05 IPPV vs. ULTVV at the given time point