Effect of mechanical ventilation versus spontaneous breathing on abdominal edema and inflammation in ARDS: an experimental porcine model

Abstract Background Mechanical ventilation (MV), compared to spontaneous breathing (SB), has been found to increase abdominal edema and inflammation in experimental sepsis. Our hypothesis was that in primary acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) MV would enhance inflammation and edema in the ab...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Silvia Marchesi, Göran Hedenstierna, Aki Hata, Ricardo Feinstein, Anders Larsson, Anders Olof Larsson, Miklós Lipcsey
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2020-04-01
Series:BMC Pulmonary Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12890-020-1138-6
id doaj-a0f67ebc15a34f0289cc4b2e5d98f894
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a0f67ebc15a34f0289cc4b2e5d98f8942020-11-25T02:59:50ZengBMCBMC Pulmonary Medicine1471-24662020-04-0120111110.1186/s12890-020-1138-6Effect of mechanical ventilation versus spontaneous breathing on abdominal edema and inflammation in ARDS: an experimental porcine modelSilvia Marchesi0Göran Hedenstierna1Aki Hata2Ricardo Feinstein3Anders Larsson4Anders Olof Larsson5Miklós Lipcsey6Hedenstierna Laboratory, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala UniversityDepartment of Medical Sciences, Clinical Physiology, Uppsala UniversityHedenstierna Laboratory, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala UniversityNational Veterinary InstituteHedenstierna Laboratory, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala UniversitySection of Clinical Chemistry, Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala UniversityHedenstierna Laboratory, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala UniversityAbstract Background Mechanical ventilation (MV), compared to spontaneous breathing (SB), has been found to increase abdominal edema and inflammation in experimental sepsis. Our hypothesis was that in primary acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) MV would enhance inflammation and edema in the abdomen. Methods Thirteen piglets were randomized into two groups (SB and MV) after the induction of ARDS by lung lavage and 1 h of injurious ventilation. 1. SB: continuous positive airway pressure 15 cmH2O, fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) 0.5 and respiratory rate (RR) maintained at about 40 cycles min− 1 by titrating remifentanil infusion. 2. MV: volume control, tidal volume 6 ml kg− 1, positive end-expiratory pressure 15 cmH2O, RR 40 cycles min− 1, FIO2 0.5. Main outcomes: abdominal edema, assessed by tissues histopathology and wet-dry weight; abdominal inflammation, assessed by cytokine concentration in tissues, blood and ascites, and tissue histopathology. Results The groups did not show significant differences in hemodynamic or respiratory parameters. Moreover, edema and inflammation in the abdominal organs were similar. However, blood IL6 increased in the MV group in all vascular beds (p < 0.001). In addition, TNFα ratio in blood increased through the lungs in MV group (+ 26% ± 3) but decreased in the SB group (− 17% ± 3). Conclusions There were no differences between the MV and SB group for abdominal edema or inflammation. However, the systemic increase in IL6 and the TNFα increase through the lungs suggest that MV, in this model, was harmful to the lungs.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12890-020-1138-6ARDSMechanical ventilationSpontaneous ventilationCytokinesEdemaAbdominal inflammation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Silvia Marchesi
Göran Hedenstierna
Aki Hata
Ricardo Feinstein
Anders Larsson
Anders Olof Larsson
Miklós Lipcsey
spellingShingle Silvia Marchesi
Göran Hedenstierna
Aki Hata
Ricardo Feinstein
Anders Larsson
Anders Olof Larsson
Miklós Lipcsey
Effect of mechanical ventilation versus spontaneous breathing on abdominal edema and inflammation in ARDS: an experimental porcine model
BMC Pulmonary Medicine
ARDS
Mechanical ventilation
Spontaneous ventilation
Cytokines
Edema
Abdominal inflammation
author_facet Silvia Marchesi
Göran Hedenstierna
Aki Hata
Ricardo Feinstein
Anders Larsson
Anders Olof Larsson
Miklós Lipcsey
author_sort Silvia Marchesi
title Effect of mechanical ventilation versus spontaneous breathing on abdominal edema and inflammation in ARDS: an experimental porcine model
title_short Effect of mechanical ventilation versus spontaneous breathing on abdominal edema and inflammation in ARDS: an experimental porcine model
title_full Effect of mechanical ventilation versus spontaneous breathing on abdominal edema and inflammation in ARDS: an experimental porcine model
title_fullStr Effect of mechanical ventilation versus spontaneous breathing on abdominal edema and inflammation in ARDS: an experimental porcine model
title_full_unstemmed Effect of mechanical ventilation versus spontaneous breathing on abdominal edema and inflammation in ARDS: an experimental porcine model
title_sort effect of mechanical ventilation versus spontaneous breathing on abdominal edema and inflammation in ards: an experimental porcine model
publisher BMC
series BMC Pulmonary Medicine
issn 1471-2466
publishDate 2020-04-01
description Abstract Background Mechanical ventilation (MV), compared to spontaneous breathing (SB), has been found to increase abdominal edema and inflammation in experimental sepsis. Our hypothesis was that in primary acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) MV would enhance inflammation and edema in the abdomen. Methods Thirteen piglets were randomized into two groups (SB and MV) after the induction of ARDS by lung lavage and 1 h of injurious ventilation. 1. SB: continuous positive airway pressure 15 cmH2O, fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) 0.5 and respiratory rate (RR) maintained at about 40 cycles min− 1 by titrating remifentanil infusion. 2. MV: volume control, tidal volume 6 ml kg− 1, positive end-expiratory pressure 15 cmH2O, RR 40 cycles min− 1, FIO2 0.5. Main outcomes: abdominal edema, assessed by tissues histopathology and wet-dry weight; abdominal inflammation, assessed by cytokine concentration in tissues, blood and ascites, and tissue histopathology. Results The groups did not show significant differences in hemodynamic or respiratory parameters. Moreover, edema and inflammation in the abdominal organs were similar. However, blood IL6 increased in the MV group in all vascular beds (p < 0.001). In addition, TNFα ratio in blood increased through the lungs in MV group (+ 26% ± 3) but decreased in the SB group (− 17% ± 3). Conclusions There were no differences between the MV and SB group for abdominal edema or inflammation. However, the systemic increase in IL6 and the TNFα increase through the lungs suggest that MV, in this model, was harmful to the lungs.
topic ARDS
Mechanical ventilation
Spontaneous ventilation
Cytokines
Edema
Abdominal inflammation
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12890-020-1138-6
work_keys_str_mv AT silviamarchesi effectofmechanicalventilationversusspontaneousbreathingonabdominaledemaandinflammationinardsanexperimentalporcinemodel
AT goranhedenstierna effectofmechanicalventilationversusspontaneousbreathingonabdominaledemaandinflammationinardsanexperimentalporcinemodel
AT akihata effectofmechanicalventilationversusspontaneousbreathingonabdominaledemaandinflammationinardsanexperimentalporcinemodel
AT ricardofeinstein effectofmechanicalventilationversusspontaneousbreathingonabdominaledemaandinflammationinardsanexperimentalporcinemodel
AT anderslarsson effectofmechanicalventilationversusspontaneousbreathingonabdominaledemaandinflammationinardsanexperimentalporcinemodel
AT andersoloflarsson effectofmechanicalventilationversusspontaneousbreathingonabdominaledemaandinflammationinardsanexperimentalporcinemodel
AT mikloslipcsey effectofmechanicalventilationversusspontaneousbreathingonabdominaledemaandinflammationinardsanexperimentalporcinemodel
_version_ 1724700835895574528