Article Text

Volume controlled and time cycled pressure limited ventilation
  1. ANNE GREENOUGH
  1. Department of Child Health
  2. King’s College Hospital
  3. London SE5 9RS
  4. Department of Paediatrics
  5. United Medical and Dental Schools
  6. St Thomas’s Hospital
  7. London SE1 7EH
  8. Children Nationwide Regional
  9. Neonatal Intensive Care Centre
  10. King’s College Hospital
  11. London SE5 9RS
    1. ANTHONY MILNER
    1. Department of Child Health
    2. King’s College Hospital
    3. London SE5 9RS
    4. Department of Paediatrics
    5. United Medical and Dental Schools
    6. St Thomas’s Hospital
    7. London SE1 7EH
    8. Children Nationwide Regional
    9. Neonatal Intensive Care Centre
    10. King’s College Hospital
    11. London SE5 9RS
      1. GABRIEL DIMITRIOU
      1. Department of Child Health
      2. King’s College Hospital
      3. London SE5 9RS
      4. Department of Paediatrics
      5. United Medical and Dental Schools
      6. St Thomas’s Hospital
      7. London SE1 7EH
      8. Children Nationwide Regional
      9. Neonatal Intensive Care Centre
      10. King’s College Hospital
      11. London SE5 9RS

        Statistics from Altmetric.com

        Request Permissions

        If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

        Editor—The results of Sinha and colleagues’ study, showing that volume controlled ventilation was better than time cycled pressure limited ventilation (TCPL), are, at first sight, difficult to explain.1 In both modes, delivered by Bird VIP, the tidal volume was 5–8 ml/kg. Furthermore, the figures indicated almost identical volume and pressure delivery, despite strikingly different flow traces. We therefore investigated this further, using a lung model, by comparing the two ventilation modes via the Bird VIP to TCPL using the SLE 2000 ventilator.

        To mimic the illustration in Sinha et al’s study, we used an I:E ratio of 1:1, a rate of 74 breaths per minute, and an inspiratory time of 0.4 seconds. The minimum, weight of infants recruited by Sinha et al was 1200 g, and we would ideally have used a delivered volume of about 7 ml (6 ml/kg).2 Unfortunately, the manufacturer specifies Bird’s minimum volume delivery to …

        View Full Text