Literature DB >> 10708156

Prone positioning attenuates and redistributes ventilator-induced lung injury in dogs.

A Broccard1, R S Shapiro, L L Schmitz, A B Adams, A Nahum, J J Marini.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We previously demonstrated a markedly dependent distribution of ventilator-induced lung injury in oleic acid-injured supine animals ventilated with large tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure > or =10 cm H2O. Because pleural pressure distributes more uniformly in the prone position, we hypothesized that the extent of injury induced by purely mechanical forces applied to the lungs of normal animals might improve and that the distribution of injury might be altered with prone positioning.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the extent and distribution of histologic changes and edema resulting from identical patterns of high end-inspiratory/low end-expiratory airway pressures in both supine and prone normal dogs. DESIGN/
SETTING: We ventilated 10 normal dogs (5 prone, 5 supine) for 6 hrs with identical ventilatory patterns (a tidal volume that generated a peak transpulmonary pressure of 35 cm H2O when implemented in the supine position before randomization, positive end-expiratory pressure = 3 cm H2O). Ventilator-induced lung injury was assessed by gravimetric analysis and histologic grading.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Wet weight/dry weight ratios (WW/DW) and histologic scores were greater in the supine than the prone group (8.8+/-2.8 vs. 6.1+/-0.7; p = .01 and 1.4+/-0.3 vs. 1+/-0.3; p = .037, respectively). In the supine group, WW/DW and histologic scores were significantly greater in dependent than nondependent regions (9.4+/-1.9 vs. 6.7+/-0.9; p = .01 and 2.0+/-0.4 vs. 0.9+/-0.4; p = .043, respectively). In the prone group, WW/DW also was greater in dependent regions (6.7+/-1.1 vs. 5.8+/-0.5; p = .054), but no significant differences were found in histologic scores between dependent and nondependent regions (p = .42).
CONCLUSION: In this model of lung injury induced solely by mechanical forces, the prone position resulted in a less severe and more homogeneous distribution of ventilator-induced lung injury. These results parallel those previously obtained in oleic acid-preinjured animals ventilated with higher positive end-expiratory pressure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10708156     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-200002000-00001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  64 in total

Review 1.  Did studies on HFOV fail to improve ARDS survival because they did not decrease VILI? On the potential validity of a physiological concept enounced several decades ago.

Authors:  Didier Dreyfuss; Jean-Damien Ricard; Stéphane Gaudry
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Does high-pressure, high-frequency oscillation shake the foundations of lung protection?

Authors:  John J Marini
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Body position changes redistribute lung computed-tomographic density in patients with acute respiratory failure: impact and clinical fallout through the following 20 years.

Authors:  Luciano Gattinoni; Antonio Pesenti; Eleonora Carlesso
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 4.  Cellular stress failure in ventilator-injured lungs.

Authors:  Nicholas E Vlahakis; Rolf D Hubmayr
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2005-02-01       Impact factor: 21.405

Review 5.  [Recruitment maneuvers for patients with lung failure. When, how, whether or not?].

Authors:  J Hinz; O Moerer; M Quintel
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.041

6.  [Comments on: role of the prone position in severe ARDS].

Authors:  A D Rieg
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.041

7.  The Effects of Prone Position Ventilation on Experimental Mild Acute Lung Injury Induced by Intraperitoneal Lipopolysaccharide Injection in Rats.

Authors:  Aydra Mendes Almeida Bianchi; Maycon Moura Reboredo; Leda Marília Fonseca Lucinda; Fernando Fonseca Reis; Manfrinni Vinícius Alves Silva; Maria Aparecida Esteves Rabelo; Marcelo Alcantara Holanda; Júlio César Abreu Oliveira; José Ángel Lorente; Bruno do Valle Pinheiro
Journal:  Lung       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 2.584

Review 8.  Mechanisms of the effects of prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  C Guerin; L Baboi; J C Richard
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 17.440

9.  A prospective international observational prevalence study on prone positioning of ARDS patients: the APRONET (ARDS Prone Position Network) study.

Authors:  C Guérin; P Beuret; J M Constantin; G Bellani; P Garcia-Olivares; O Roca; J H Meertens; P Azevedo Maia; T Becher; J Peterson; A Larsson; M Gurjar; Z Hajjej; F Kovari; A H Assiri; E Mainas; M S Hasan; D R Morocho-Tutillo; L Baboi; J M Chrétien; G François; L Ayzac; L Chen; L Brochard; A Mercat
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  Relationship between gas exchange response to prone position and lung recruitability during acute respiratory failure.

Authors:  Alessandro Protti; Davide Chiumello; Massimo Cressoni; Eleonora Carlesso; Cristina Mietto; Virna Berto; Marco Lazzerini; Michael Quintel; Luciano Gattinoni
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2009-02-03       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.