OBJECTIVE: Mechanical ventilation can be lifesaving for status asthmaticus, but how best to accomplish mechanical ventilation is unclear. Biologically variable ventilation (mechanical ventilation that emulates healthy variation) and conventional control mode ventilation (monotonously regular) were compared in an animal model of bronchospasm to determine which approach yields better gas exchange and respiratory mechanics. DESIGN: A randomized prospective trial of biologically variable ventilation vs. control mode ventilation in swine. SETTING: University research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Eighteen farm-raised pigs. INTERVENTIONS: Methacholine was administered as a nebulized aerosol to initiate bronchospasm, defined as doubling of peak inspiratory pressure and respiratory system resistance, and then randomized (n = 9 each group) to either continue control mode ventilation or switch to biologically variable ventilation at the same minute ventilation. Over the next 4 hrs, hemodynamics, blood gases, respiratory mechanics, and carbon dioxide expirograms were recorded hourly. At end-experiment, tracheobronchial lavage was undertaken to determine interleukin-6 and -10 concentrations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements of physiologic variables and inflammatory cytokines showed that biologically variable ventilation significantly improved gas exchange, with greater arterial oxygen tensions (p = .006; group x time interaction), lower arterial carbon dioxide tensions (p = .0003; group effect), lower peak inspiratory pressures (p = .0001; group x time), greater static compliance (p = .0001; group x time), greater dynamic compliance (p = .0001; group x time), and lower total respiratory system resistance (p = .028; group x time), compared with conventional ventilation. The appearance of inflammatory cytokines in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (interleukin-6 and -10) was not affected by mode of ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: In this experimental model, biologically variable ventilation was superior to control mode ventilation in terms of gas exchange and respiratory mechanics during severe bronchospasm.
OBJECTIVE: Mechanical ventilation can be lifesaving for status asthmaticus, but how best to accomplish mechanical ventilation is unclear. Biologically variable ventilation (mechanical ventilation that emulates healthy variation) and conventional control mode ventilation (monotonously regular) were compared in an animal model of bronchospasm to determine which approach yields better gas exchange and respiratory mechanics. DESIGN: A randomized prospective trial of biologically variable ventilation vs. control mode ventilation in swine. SETTING: University research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Eighteen farm-raised pigs. INTERVENTIONS:Methacholine was administered as a nebulized aerosol to initiate bronchospasm, defined as doubling of peak inspiratory pressure and respiratory system resistance, and then randomized (n = 9 each group) to either continue control mode ventilation or switch to biologically variable ventilation at the same minute ventilation. Over the next 4 hrs, hemodynamics, blood gases, respiratory mechanics, and carbon dioxide expirograms were recorded hourly. At end-experiment, tracheobronchial lavage was undertaken to determine interleukin-6 and -10 concentrations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements of physiologic variables and inflammatory cytokines showed that biologically variable ventilation significantly improved gas exchange, with greater arterial oxygen tensions (p = .006; group x time interaction), lower arterial carbon dioxide tensions (p = .0003; group effect), lower peak inspiratory pressures (p = .0001; group x time), greater static compliance (p = .0001; group x time), greater dynamic compliance (p = .0001; group x time), and lower total respiratory system resistance (p = .028; group x time), compared with conventional ventilation. The appearance of inflammatory cytokines in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (interleukin-6 and -10) was not affected by mode of ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: In this experimental model, biologically variable ventilation was superior to control mode ventilation in terms of gas exchange and respiratory mechanics during severe bronchospasm.
Authors: J Jane Pillow; Gabrielle C Musk; Carryn M McLean; Graeme R Polglase; Richard G B Dalton; Alan H Jobe; Béla Suki Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Anurak Thungtong; Matthew F Knoch; Frank J Jacono; Thomas E Dick; Kenneth A Loparo Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Andre Dos Santos Rocha; Roberta Südy; Davide Bizzotto; Miklos Kassai; Tania Carvalho; Raffaele L Dellacà; Ferenc Peták; Walid Habre Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Isabela Henriques; Gisele A Padilha; Robert Huhle; Caio Wierzchon; Paulo J B Miranda; Isalira P Ramos; Nazareth Rocha; Fernanda F Cruz; Raquel S Santos; Milena V de Oliveira; Sergio A Souza; Regina C Goldenberg; Ronir R Luiz; Paolo Pelosi; Marcelo G de Abreu; Pedro L Silva; Patricia R M Rocco Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 4.566