Patricia R M Rocco1, Paolo Pelosi. 1. Laboratory of Pulmonary Investigation, Carlos Chagas Filho Biophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. prmrocco@biof.ufrj.br
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The pathogenesis of acute respiratory distress syndrome has been explained by the presence of a direct (pulmonary) or indirect (extrapulmonary) insult to the lung parenchyma. Evidence indicates that the pathophysiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome may differ according to the type of the insult. This article presents a brief overview of the differences between pulmonary and extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, and discusses the interactions between lung functional, morphological aspects, and response to different therapies, both in experimental models and in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. RECENT FINDINGS: Many researchers recognize that experimental pulmonary and extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome are not identical when considering morpho-functional aspects, the response to positive end-expiratory pressure and recruitment manoeuvre, prone position and other adjunctive therapies. Contradictory results have been reported in different clinical studies, however, which may be attributed to the difficulty of classifying acute respiratory distress syndrome in one or the other category, and being confident of the onset, the phase and the severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome in all patients. SUMMARY: Heterogeneous acute respiratory distress syndrome patients are still considered to suffer from one syndrome, and are treated in the same way. Understanding the range of different pathways that lead to pulmonary dysfunction makes it possible to better target clinical treatment.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The pathogenesis of acute respiratory distress syndrome has been explained by the presence of a direct (pulmonary) or indirect (extrapulmonary) insult to the lung parenchyma. Evidence indicates that the pathophysiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome may differ according to the type of the insult. This article presents a brief overview of the differences between pulmonary and extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome, and discusses the interactions between lung functional, morphological aspects, and response to different therapies, both in experimental models and in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. RECENT FINDINGS: Many researchers recognize that experimental pulmonary and extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome are not identical when considering morpho-functional aspects, the response to positive end-expiratory pressure and recruitment manoeuvre, prone position and other adjunctive therapies. Contradictory results have been reported in different clinical studies, however, which may be attributed to the difficulty of classifying acute respiratory distress syndrome in one or the other category, and being confident of the onset, the phase and the severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome in all patients. SUMMARY: Heterogeneous acute respiratory distress syndromepatients are still considered to suffer from one syndrome, and are treated in the same way. Understanding the range of different pathways that lead to pulmonary dysfunction makes it possible to better target clinical treatment.
Authors: Soraia C Abreu; Mariana A Antunes; Paolo Pelosi; Marcelo M Morales; Patricia R M Rocco Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Frank Dodoo-Schittko; Susanne Brandstetter; Magdalena Brandl; Sebastian Blecha; Michael Quintel; Steffen Weber-Carstens; Stefan Kluge; Patrick Meybohm; Caroline Rolfes; Björn Ellger; Friedhelm Bach; Tobias Welte; Thomas Muders; Kathrin Thomann-Hackner; Thomas Bein; Christian Apfelbacher Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Cíntia L Santos; Lillian Moraes; Raquel S Santos; Mariana G Oliveira; Johnatas D Silva; Tatiana Maron-Gutierrez; Débora S Ornellas; Marcelo M Morales; Vera L Capelozzi; Nelson Jamel; Paolo Pelosi; Patricia R M Rocco; Cristiane S N B Garcia Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Paolo Pelosi; Jan J De Waele; Manu Lng Malbrain; Chad G Ball; Maureen O Meade; Henry T Stelfox; Kevin B Laupland Journal: Crit Care Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Pedro L Silva; Fernanda F Cruz; Livia C Fujisaki; Gisele P Oliveira; Cynthia S Samary; Debora S Ornellas; Tatiana Maron-Gutierrez; Nazareth N Rocha; Regina Goldenberg; Cristiane S N B Garcia; Marcelo M Morales; Vera L Capelozzi; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Patricia R M Rocco Journal: Crit Care Date: 2010-06-14 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Paula Tejera; Nuala J Meyer; Feng Chen; Rui Feng; Yang Zhao; D Shane O'Mahony; Lin Li; Chau-Chyun Sheu; Rihong Zhai; Zhaoxi Wang; Li Su; Ed Bajwa; Amy M Ahasic; Peter F Clardy; Michelle N Gong; Angela J Frank; Paul N Lanken; B Taylor Thompson; Jason D Christie; Mark M Wurfel; Grant E O'Keefe; David C Christiani Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 6.318