OBJECTIVE: To compare a molecular double-indicator dilution technique with the gravimetrical reference method for measurement of extra-vascular lung water in porcine endotoxin shock. DESIGN: Open comparative experimental study. SETTING: Animal research laboratory. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: In fourteen anaesthetised, mechanically ventilated landrace pigs, central and pulmonary haemodynamics as well as pulmonary gas exchange were measured. Extra-vascular lung water was quantitated gravimetrically as well as with a molecular double indicator dilution technique. Eight of these animals were subjected to endotoxaemia, the rest serving as sham controls. No difference in extra-vascular lung water was observed between the two methods in sham animals. Furthermore, extra-vascular lung water assessed with the molecular double-indicator dilution technique at the initiation of endotoxin infusion did not differ significantly from the corresponding values for sham animals. Endotoxaemia induced a hypodynamic shock with concurrent pulmonary hypertension and a pronounced deterioration in gas exchange. No increase in extra-vascular lung water was detected with the molecular double-indicator dilution technique in response to endotoxin, whereas this parameter was significantly higher when assessed with the gravimetric method. CONCLUSION: The molecular double-indicator dilution technique showed similar results as the gravimetrical method for assessment of extra-vascular lung water in non-endotoxaemic conditions. However, during endotoxin-induced lung injury the molecular double indicator dilution technique failed to detect the significant increase in extra-vascular lung water as measured by the gravimetric method. These data suggest that the molecular double indicator dilution technique may be of limited value during sepsis-induced lung injury.
OBJECTIVE: To compare a molecular double-indicator dilution technique with the gravimetrical reference method for measurement of extra-vascular lung water in porcine endotoxin shock. DESIGN: Open comparative experimental study. SETTING: Animal research laboratory. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: In fourteen anaesthetised, mechanically ventilated landrace pigs, central and pulmonary haemodynamics as well as pulmonary gas exchange were measured. Extra-vascular lung water was quantitated gravimetrically as well as with a molecular double indicator dilution technique. Eight of these animals were subjected to endotoxaemia, the rest serving as sham controls. No difference in extra-vascular lung water was observed between the two methods in sham animals. Furthermore, extra-vascular lung water assessed with the molecular double-indicator dilution technique at the initiation of endotoxin infusion did not differ significantly from the corresponding values for sham animals. Endotoxaemia induced a hypodynamic shock with concurrent pulmonary hypertension and a pronounced deterioration in gas exchange. No increase in extra-vascular lung water was detected with the molecular double-indicator dilution technique in response to endotoxin, whereas this parameter was significantly higher when assessed with the gravimetric method. CONCLUSION: The molecular double-indicator dilution technique showed similar results as the gravimetrical method for assessment of extra-vascular lung water in non-endotoxaemic conditions. However, during endotoxin-induced lung injury the molecular double indicator dilution technique failed to detect the significant increase in extra-vascular lung water as measured by the gravimetric method. These data suggest that the molecular double indicator dilution technique may be of limited value during sepsis-induced lung injury.
Authors: Edward Abraham; Peter Andrews; Massimo Antonelli; Laurent Brochard; Christian Brun-Buisson; Geoffrey Dobb; Jean-Yves Fagon; Johan Groeneveld; Jordi Mancebo; Philipp Metnitz; Stefano Nava; Michael Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Marco Ranieri; Christian Richard; Robert Tasker; Benoit Vallet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-06-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Benjamin Maddison; Riccardo Giudici; Enrico Calzia; Christopher Wolff; Charles Hinds; Peter Radermacher; Rupert M Pearse Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-07-08 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Mikhail Y Kirov; Vsevolod V Kuzkov; Vladimir N Kuklin; Kristine Waerhaug; Lars J Bjertnaes Journal: Crit Care Date: 2004-10-19 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Charles R Phillips; Kevin Vinecore; Daniel S Hagg; Rebecca S Sawai; Jerome A Differding; Jennifer M Watters; Martin A Schreiber Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: S L Vrancken; A Nusmeier; J C Hopman; K D Liem; J G van der Hoeven; J Lemson; A F van Heijst; W P de Boode Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 2.502