By PEEP the curve would shift upwards as well as the slope could be steeper. Techniques: Sixteen individuals (48?five years) just after CABG in CPB have been studied postoperatively each 0.5 h Ciliobrevin A web during 3 h whilst mechanically ventilated (FiO2 1.0) with measurements of end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and blood gases. Eight sufferers were randomized to LR (45 cmH2O airway pressure two x 20 s) after which PEEP was set 1 cmH2O > LIP obtained from a static P curve (PEEP group), while the 8 other were randomized to LR only (ZEEP group). Three inspiratory P (including EELV) curves had been obtained in both groups. Inside the PEEP-group, the very first curve (A l) was obtained prior to LR and PEEP, the second (B ? during PEEP (14 ?3 cmH2O, mean ?SD) 2.5 h soon after LR, and also the third (C v) 0.5 h after removal of PEEP, i.e. 3 h soon after LR. Inside the ZEEP group, P curves have been obtained at comparable instances. Statistics: ANOVA and Wilcoxon signed rank test. Outcomes: Inside the ZEEP group, no alter in PaO2, lung volume or PV-relations occurred in the course of the study. In the PEEP group, PaO2 increased by 16 ?15 kPa (P < 0.002) after LR and PEEP and was unchanged during the study. EELV increased by 1120 ?235 ml (P < 0.0001) and remained stable until removal of PEEP. The 3 P curves are shown in the figure (A B or C, P < 0.03). Discussion: In patients after CPB, LR without subsequent PEEP had no effect. However, when LR was followed by PEEP, EELV increased and the P curve became steeper and shifted upwards. Furthermore, the curve remained the same 0.5 h after PEEP-removal. This and the unchanged PaO2 indicate that no new lung collapse occurred after removal of PEEP and suggest that PEEP might have a sustained stabilizing effect on lung structures in these patients.FigurePThe histopathological changes comparison in healthy rabbit lung ventilated with ZEEP, Sigh and PEEP?Yardimci, G Meyanci, H , I Paksoy ?IU Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Department of Anaesthesiology, 34303 Istanbul, Turkey Our aim was to compare the effects of LV + ZEEP, LV + Sigh and LV + PEEP on histopathological changes with healthy rabbit lungs. Fifteen New Zeland rabbits were randomly divided into three groups (n = 5). Animals were ventilated for 3 hours with FiO2:1.0, f:80/dk. Group1: Low volume (5 ml/kg) + ZEEP, Group 2: Low volume (5 ml/kg) + 10 cmH2O PEEP, Group 3:SAvailable online http://ccforum.com/supplements/5/SLow volume (5 ml/kg) + Sigh. At the end of 3 hours the animals were sacrificed for histopathological evalotion. Lungs were removed and fixed in 10 buffered formaldehyde. Tissue sections were processed in the usual manner for light microscopic examination with Hematoxylin osin stain. The pathological lesions were classified ranging from 0 to ++++. There were statistically significant differences between ZEEP and PEEP groups, ZEEP and Sigh groups (P < 0.05). The damage were prominent in the ZEEP group for alveolar hemorrhage and conPgestion. There were no statistically significance within groups for notrofill infiltration and density. But the damage were more significant than the others in the ZEEP group. We saw atelectasia only in the Sigh group. The damage was more significant than the others in the ZEEP group. The atelectasia was seen only in the Sigh group. We conclude PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20718733 that adding Sigh and PEEP to low volume may reduce the damage and PEEP may perhaps be far more productive to stop atelectasia.The pattern of breathing and chest wall movements at unique levels of stress support and PEEPD Chiumello*, P Pelosi*, P Taccone*, E Carles.