Search

Rationale: It is unknown whether preventing overdistention or collapse is more important when titrating positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objectives: To compare PEEP targeting minimal overdistention or minimal collapse or using a compromise between collapse and overdistention in a randomized trial and to assess the impact on respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, inflammation, and hemodynamics. Methods: In a porcine model of ARDS, lung collapse and overdistention were estimated using electrical impedance tomography during a decremental PEEP titration. Pigs were randomized to three groups and ventilated for 12 hours: PEEP set at ⩽3% of overdistention (low overdistention), ⩽3% of collapse (low collapse), and the crossing point of collapse and overdistention. Measurements and Main Results: Thirty-six pigs (12 per group) were included. Median (interquartile range) values of PEEP were 7 (6–8), 11 (10–11), and 15 (12–16) cm H2O in the three groups (P < 0.001). With low overdistension, 6 (50%) pigs died, whereas survival was 100% in both other groups. Cause of death was hemodynamic in nature, with high transpulmonary vascular gradient and high epinephrine requirements. Compared with the other groups, pigs surviving with low overdistension had worse respiratory mechanics and gas exchange during the entire protocol. Minimal differences existed between crossing-point and low-collapse animals in physiological parameters, but postmortem alveolar density was more homogeneous in the crossing-point group. Inflammatory markers were not significantly different. Conclusions: PEEP to minimize overdistention resulted in high mortality in an animal model of ARDS. Minimizing collapse or choosing a compromise between collapse and overdistention may result in less lung injury, with potential benefits of the compromise approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is unclear what effect biological sex has on outcomes of acute lung injury (ALI). Clinical studies are confounded by their observational design. We addressed this knowledge gap with a preclinical systematic review of ALI animal studies. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies of intratracheal/intranasal/aerosolized lipopolysaccharide administration (the most common ALI model) that reported sex-stratified data. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Our primary outcome was histological tissue injury and secondary outcomes included alveolar-capillary barrier alterations and inflammatory markers. We used a random-effects inverse variance meta-analysis, expressing data as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool. We identified six studies involving 132 animals across 11 independent experiments. A total of 41 outcomes were extracted, with the direction of effect suggesting greater severity in males than females in 26/41 outcomes (63%). One study reported on lung histology and found that male mice exhibited greater injury than females (SMD: 1.61, 95% CI: 0.53–2.69). Meta-analysis demonstrated significantly elevated albumin levels (SMD: 2.17, 95% CI: 0.63–3.70) and total cell counts (SMD: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.27–1.33) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from male mice compared with female mice. Most studies had an “unclear risk of bias.” Our findings suggest sex-related differences in ALI severity. However, these conclusions are drawn from a small number of animals and studies. Further research is required to address the fundamental issue of biological sex differences in LPS-induced ALI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The Oxylator is an automatic resuscitator, powered only by an oxygen cylinder with no electricity required, that could be used in acute respiratory failure in situations in which standard mechanical ventilation is not available or feasible. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of mechanical ventilation by using this automatic resuscitator in an animal model of ARDS. METHODS: A randomized experimental study in a porcine ARDS model with 12 pigs randomized to the Oxylator group or the control group (6 per group) and ventilated for 4 h. In the Oxylator group, peak pressure was set at 20 cm H2O and PEEP was set at the lowest observed breathing frequency during a decremental PEEP titration. The control pigs were ventilated with a conventional ventilator by using protective settings and PEEP at the crossing point of collapse and overdistention, as indicated by electrical impedance tomography. Our end points were feasibility and safety as well as respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, and hemodynamics. RESULTS: After lung injury, the mean ± SD respiratory system compliance and PaO2 /FIO2 were 13 ± 2 mL/cm H2O and 61 ± 17 mm Hg, respectively. The mean ± SD total PEEP was 10 ± 2 cm H2O and 13 ± 2 cm H2O in the control and Oxylator groups, respectively (P = .046). The mean plateau pressure was kept to < 30 cm H2O in both groups. In the Oxylator group, the tidal volume was transiently > 8 mL/kg but was 6 ± 0.4 mL/kg at 4 h, whereas the breathing frequency increased from 38 ± 4 to 48 ± 3 breaths/min (P < .001). There was no difference in driving pressure, compliance, PaO2/FIO2, and pulmonary shunt between the groups. The mean ± SD PaCO2 was higher in the Oxylator group after 4 h, 74 ± 9 mm Hg versus 58 ± 6 mm Hg (P < .001). There were no differences in hemodynamics between the groups, including blood pressure and cardiac output. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term mechanical ventilation by using an automatic resuscitator and a fixed pressure setting in an ARDS animal model was feasible and safe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a need for innovative, inexpensive, and simple ventilator devices for mass use has emerged. The Oxylator (CPR Medical Devices, Markham, Ontario, Canada) is an FDA-approved, fist-size, portable ventilation device developed for out-of-hospital emergency ventilation. It has not been tested in conditions of severe lung injury or with added PEEP. We aimed to assess the performance and reliability of the device in simulated and experimental conditions of severe lung injury, and to derive monitoring methods to allow the delivery of safe, individualized ventilation during situations of surge. METHODS: We bench-tested the functioning of the device with an added PEEP valve extensively, mimicking adult patients with various respiratory mechanics during controlled ventilation, spontaneous breathing, and prolonged unstable conditions where mechanics or breathing effort was changed at every breath. The device was further tested on a porcine model (4 animals) after inducing lung injury, and these results were compared with conventional ventilation modes. RESULTS: The device was stable and predictable, delivering a constant flow (30 L/min) and cycling automatically at the inspiratory pressure set (minimum of 20 cm H2O) above auto-PEEP. Changes in respiratory mechanics manifested as changes in respiratory timing, allowing prediction of tidal volumes from breathing frequency. Simulating lung injury resulted in relatively low tidal volumes (330 mL with compliance of 20 mL/cm H2O). In the porcine model, arterial oxygenation, CO2, and pH were comparable to conventional modes of ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: The Oxylator is a simple device that delivered stable ventilation with tidal volumes within a clinically acceptable range in bench and porcine lung models with low compliance. External monitoring of respiratory timing is advisable, allowing tidal volume estimation and recognition of changes in respiratory mechanics. The device can be an efficient, low-cost, and practical rescue solution for providing short-term ventilatory support as a temporary bridge, but it requires a caregiver at the bedside. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We recently reported that continuous negative abdominal pressure (CNAP) could recruit dorsal atelectasis in experimental lung injury and that oxygenation improved at different transpulmonary pressure values compared with increases in airway pressure (Yoshida T, Engelberts D, Otulakowski G, Katira BH, Post M, Ferguson ND, Brochard L, Amato MBP, Kavanagh BP. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 197: 534-537, 2018). The mechanism of recruitment with CNAP is uncertain, and its impact compared with a commonly proposed alternative approach to recruitment, prone positioning, is not known. We hypothesized that CNAP recruits lung by decreasing the vertical pleural pressure (Ppl) gradient (i.e., difference between dependent and nondependent Ppl), thought to be one mechanism of action of prone positioning. An established porcine model of lung injury (surfactant depletion followed by ventilator-induced lung injury) was used. CNAP was applied using a plexiglass chamber that completely enclosed the abdomen at a constant negative pressure (-5 cmH2O). Lungs were recruited to maximal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP; 25 cmH2O) and deflated in steps of PEEP (2 cmH2O, 10 min each). CNAP lowered the Ppl in dependent but not in nondependent lung, and therefore, in contrast to PEEP, it narrowed the vertical Ppl gradient. CNAP increased respiratory system compliance and oxygenation and appeared to selectively displace the posterior diaphragm caudad (computerized tomography images). Compared with prone position without CNAP, CNAP in the supine position was associated with higher arterial partial pressure of oxygen and compliance, as well as greater homogeneity of ventilation. The mechanism of action of CNAP appears to be via selective narrowing of the vertical gradient of Ppl. CNAP appears to offer physiological advantages over prone positioning. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Continuous negative abdominal pressure reduces the vertical gradient in (dependent vs. nondependent) pleural pressure and increases oxygenation and lung compliance; it is more effective than prone positioning at comparable levels of positive end-expiratory pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]