TY - JOUR T1 - Individualized flow controlled ventilation compared to pressure controlled ventilation in one lung ventilation – a prospective, randomized porcine study JF - European Respiratory Journal JO - Eur Respir J DO - 10.1183/13993003.congress-2020.1717 VL - 56 IS - suppl 64 SP - 1717 AU - Patrick Spraider AU - Julia Abram AU - Manuela Ranalter AU - Simon Mathis AU - Gabriel Putzer AU - Judith Martini Y1 - 2020/09/07 UR - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/56/suppl_64/1717.abstract N2 - Background: Flow controlled ventilation (FCV) is a novel ventilation method established to guarantee a continuous stable flow during in- and expiration. Additionally, in FCV direct intratracheal pressure measurement allows to determine lung mechanic limits and therefore individually optimize ventilation.Aims and Objectives: Aim of this study was to investigate individualized FCV compared to pressure controlled ventilation (PCV) in a porcine model of simulated thoracic surgery requiring one lung ventilation (OLV).Methods: Thoracic surgery was simulated with left sided thoracotomy and collapse of the left lung over a period of 3 hours. Ventilation was performed with compliance guided pressure settings in FCV. PCV was established with compliance guided PEEP setting and peak pressure set to achieve a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg during OLV.Results: The FCV group (n=8) maintained normocapnia despite a significantly lower respiratory minute volume (8.0 vs. 11.6 l/min, p<0.001) compared to the PCV group (n=8), where permissive hypercapnia had to be accepted during OLV (paCO2 42.6 vs. 51.7 mmHg, p<0.001). Tidal volume (6.11 vs. 6.09 ml/kg, p=0.840) and Horowitz index (333.7 vs. 313.8, p=0.186) were comparable in both groups as well as pulmonary shunt fraction (5.0 vs. 6.8 %, p=0.131) during OLV.Conclusion: In this porcine study individualized FCV maintained normocapnia during OLV within a significant reduction of respiratory minute volume, while permissive hypercapnia had to be accepted in PCV. We hypothesize this finding is due to active control of expiratory flow in FCV, which is a novelty in artificial ventilation.FootnotesCite this article as: European Respiratory Journal 2020; 56: Suppl. 64, 1717.This abstract was presented at the 2020 ERS International Congress, in session “Respiratory viruses in the "pre COVID-19" era”.This is an ERS International Congress abstract. No full-text version is available. Further material to accompany this abstract may be available at www.ers-education.org (ERS member access only). ER -