Dataset Information

Effects of variable versus nonvariable controlled mechanical ventilation on pulmonary inflammation in experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome in pigs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mechanical ventilation with variable tidal volumes (V_T) may improve lung function and reduce ventilator-induced lung injury in experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, previous investigations were limited to less than 6 h, and control groups did not follow clinical standards. We hypothesised that 24 h of mechanical ventilation with variable V_T reduces pulmonary inflammation (as reflected by neutrophil infiltration), compared with standard protective, nonvariable ventilation.

Methods

Experimental ARDS was induced in 14 anaesthetised pigs with saline lung lavage followed by injurious mechanical ventilation. Pigs (n=7 per group) were randomly assigned to using variable V_T or nonvariable V_T modes of mechanical ventilation for 24 h. In both groups, ventilator settings including positive end-expiratory pressure and oxygen inspiratory fraction were adjusted according to the ARDS Network protocol. Pulmonary inflammation (primary endpoint) and perfusion were assessed by positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[¹⁸F]fluoro-d-glucose and ⁶⁸Gallium (⁶⁸Ga)-labelled microspheres, respectively. Gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and haemodynamics were quantified. Lung aeration was determined using CT.

Results

The specific global uptake rate of ¹⁸F-FDG increased to a similar extent regardless of mode of mechanical ventilation (median uptake for variable V_T=0.016 min^-1 [inter-quartile range, 0.012-0.029] compared with median uptake for nonvariable V_T=0.037 min^-1 [0.008-0.053]; P=0.406). Gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, haemodynamics, and lung aeration and perfusion were similar in both variable and nonvariable V_T ventilatory modes.

Conclusion

In a porcine model of ARDS, 24 h of mechanical ventilation with variable V_T did not attenuate pulmonary inflammation compared with standard protective mechanical ventilation with nonvariable V_T.

SUBMITTER: Wittenstein J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8016484 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBenefits of variable mechanical ventilation based on the physiological breathing pattern have been observed both in healthy and injured lungs. These benefits have not been characterized in pediatric models and the effect of this ventilation mode on regional distribution of lung inflammation also remains controversial. Here, we compare structural, molecular and functional outcomes reflecting regional inflammation between PVV and conventional pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in a pediatric model of healthy lungs and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).MethodsNew-Zealand White rabbit pups (n = 36, 670 ± 20 g [half-width 95% confidence interval]), with healthy lungs or after induction of ARDS, were randomized to five hours of mechanical ventilation with PCV or PVV. Regional lung aeration, inflammation and perfusion were assessed using x-ray computed tomography, positron-emission tomography and single-photon emission computed tomography, respectively. Ventilation parameters, blood gases and respiratory tissue elastance were recorded hourly.ResultsMechanical ventilation worsened respiratory elastance in healthy and ARDS animals ventilated with PCV (11 ± 8%, 6 ± 3%, p < 0.04), however, this trend was improved by PVV (1 ± 4%, - 6 ± 2%). Animals receiving PVV presented reduced inflammation as assessed by lung normalized [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in healthy (1.49 ± 0.62 standardized uptake value, SUV) and ARDS animals (1.86 ± 0.47 SUV) compared to PCV (2.33 ± 0.775 and 2.28 ± 0.3 SUV, respectively, p < 0.05), particularly in the well and poorly aerated lung zones. No benefit of PVV could be detected on regional blood perfusion or blood gas parameters.ConclusionsVariable ventilation based on a physiological respiratory pattern, compared to conventional pressure-controlled ventilation, reduced global and regional inflammation in both healthy and injured lungs of juvenile rabbits.

Project description:BackgroundRecruitment manoeuvres involve transient elevations in airway pressure applied during mechanical ventilation to open ('recruit') collapsed lung units and increase the number of alveoli participating in tidal ventilation. Recruitment manoeuvres are often used to treat patients in intensive care who have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the effect of this treatment on clinical outcomes has not been well established. This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2009.ObjectivesOur primary objective was to determine the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on mortality in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Our secondary objective was to determine, in the same population, the effects of recruitment manoeuvres on oxygenation and adverse events (e.g. rate of barotrauma).Search methodsFor this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCO), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry from inception to August 2016.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults who were mechanically ventilated that compared recruitment manoeuvres versus standard care for patients given a diagnosis of ARDS.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.Main resultsTen trials met the inclusion criteria for this review (n = 1658 participants). We found five trials to be at low risk of bias and five to be at moderate risk of bias. Six of the trials included recruitment manoeuvres as part of an open lung ventilation strategy that was different from control ventilation in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (such as mode of ventilation, higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration and lower tidal volume or plateau pressure). Six studies reported mortality outcomes. Pooled data from five trials (1370 participants) showed a reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.97, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence), pooled data from five trials (1450 participants) showed no difference in 28-day mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01, P = 0.06, low-quality evidence) and pooled data from four trials (1313 participants) showed no difference in in-hospital mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01, P = 0.07, low-quality evidence). Data revealed no differences in risk of barotrauma (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.53, P = 0.60, seven studies, 1508 participants, moderate-quality evidence).Authors' conclusionsWe identified significant clinical heterogeneity in the 10 included trials. Results are based upon the findings of several (five) trials that included an "open lung ventilation strategy", whereby the intervention group differed from the control group in aspects other than the recruitment manoeuvre (including co-interventions such as higher PEEP, different modes of ventilation and higher plateau pressure), making interpretation of the results difficult. A ventilation strategy that included recruitment manoeuvres in participants with ARDS reduced intensive care unit mortality without increasing the risk of barotrauma but had no effect on 28-day and hospital mortality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low, as most of the included trials provided co-interventions as part of an open lung ventilation strategy, and this might have influenced results of the outcome.