摘要 目的 采用Meta分析的方法评价压力控制通气（PCV）与容量控制通气（VCV）对术中单肺通气（OLV）患者呼吸力学及循环的影响。方法 检索Cochrane图书馆、Pubmed、Embase，检索时间从建库至2016年2月。收集术中单肺通气使用PCV与VCV的临床随机对照试验(RCT)。采用Cochrane协作网系统评价法评价纳入文献的质量，采用RevMan 5．0软件对收集的患者资料进行Meta分析评价。结果 共纳入14项研究，包括964例患者，其中PCV组480例，VCV组484例。与VCV组相比，在T1时间点，PCV组气道平均压比值比（odds ratio，OR）（OR=-0.22，95％CI -0.42,-0.01，p<0.05）较低；T2时间点，PCV组气道峰压较低［加权均数差（weighted mean difference， WMD=-1.37，95％置信区间（confidence interval，CI）= -1.69,-1.05）］，及气道平台压较低（WMD=-0.29，95％CI -0.51,-0.07），而动脉血氧分压较高（WMD=0.52，95％CI 0.08,0.95）；T3时间点，PCV组气道峰压较低（WMD=-0.63，95％CI -1.09,0.17）。结论 与VCV相比，OLV期间PCV可提供较低的气道压，可能是一种较好的通气模式。
[Abstract] Objective To define the efficacy of pressure controlled ventilation (PCV) versus volume control ventilation (VCV) in respiratory mechanics and circulation in patients during one-lung ventilation (OLV). Methods We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the efficacy of PCV versus VCV in respiratory mechanics and circulation in patients during one-lung ventilation. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the method recommended by Cochrane Collaboratiora. Meta-—analysis was conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.0 software. Results Fourteen original RCTs investigating a total of 964 patients，of whom 480 received PCV and 484 received traditional VCV，met the inclusion criteria．PCV was significantly associated with lower mean airway pressure（OR=-0.22，95％CI -0.42,-0.01，p<0.05） at T1, lower peak airway pressure（WMD=-1.37，95％CI -1.69,-1.05）, lower plateau pressure airway pressure（WMD=-0.29，95％CI -0.51,-0.07）, higher pressure of arterial oxygen （WMD=0.52，95％CI 0.08,0.95）at T2, lower peak airway pressure（WMD=-0.63，95％CI -1.09,0.17） at T3. Conclusion compared with PCV or VCV,PCV might be a better alternative analgesia technology for patients who underwent OLV.
Cited
)
