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]