OBJECTIVES: To explore whether 1) conventional pressure support ventilation improves lung function and attenuates the pulmonary inflammatory response compared to pressure-controlled ventilation and 2) random variation of pressure support levels (noisy pressure support ventilation) adds further beneficial effects to pressure support ventilation. DESIGN: Three-arm, randomized, experimental study. SETTING: University hospital research facility. SUBJECTS: Twenty-four juvenile pigs. INTERVENTIONS: Acute lung injury was induced by surfactant depletion. Animals were randomly assigned to 6 hrs of mechanical ventilation (n = 8 per group) with either 1) pressure-controlled ventilation, 2) pressure support ventilation, or 3) noisy pressure support ventilation. During noisy pressure support ventilation, the pressure support varied randomly, with values following a normal distribution. In all groups, the driving pressures were set to achieve a mean tidal volume of 6 mL/kg. At the end of experiments, animals were killed and lungs extracted for histologic and biochemical analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory, gas-exchange, and hemodynamics variables were assessed hourly. The diffuse alveolar damage and the inflammatory response of lungs were quantified. Pressure support ventilation and noisy pressure support ventilation improved gas exchange and were associated with reduced histologic damage and interleukin-6 concentrations in lung tissue compared to pressure-controlled ventilation. Noisy pressure support ventilation further improved gas exchange and decreased the inspiratory effort while reducing alveolar edema and inflammatory infiltration compared to pressure support ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: In this model of acute lung injury, pressure support ventilation and noisy pressure support ventilation attenuated pulmonary inflammatory response and improved gas exchange as compared to pressure-controlled ventilation. Noisy pressure support ventilation further improved gas exchange, reduced the inspiratory effort, and attenuated alveolar edema and inflammatory infiltration as compared to conventional pressure support ventilation.
OBJECTIVES: To explore whether 1) conventional pressure support ventilation improves lung function and attenuates the pulmonary inflammatory response compared to pressure-controlled ventilation and 2) random variation of pressure support levels (noisy pressure support ventilation) adds further beneficial effects to pressure support ventilation. DESIGN: Three-arm, randomized, experimental study. SETTING: University hospital research facility. SUBJECTS: Twenty-four juvenile pigs. INTERVENTIONS:Acute lung injury was induced by surfactant depletion. Animals were randomly assigned to 6 hrs of mechanical ventilation (n = 8 per group) with either 1) pressure-controlled ventilation, 2) pressure support ventilation, or 3) noisy pressure support ventilation. During noisy pressure support ventilation, the pressure support varied randomly, with values following a normal distribution. In all groups, the driving pressures were set to achieve a mean tidal volume of 6 mL/kg. At the end of experiments, animals were killed and lungs extracted for histologic and biochemical analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory, gas-exchange, and hemodynamics variables were assessed hourly. The diffuse alveolar damage and the inflammatory response of lungs were quantified. Pressure support ventilation and noisy pressure support ventilation improved gas exchange and were associated with reduced histologic damage and interleukin-6 concentrations in lung tissue compared to pressure-controlled ventilation. Noisy pressure support ventilation further improved gas exchange and decreased the inspiratory effort while reducing alveolar edema and inflammatory infiltration compared to pressure support ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: In this model of acute lung injury, pressure support ventilation and noisy pressure support ventilation attenuated pulmonary inflammatory response and improved gas exchange as compared to pressure-controlled ventilation. Noisy pressure support ventilation further improved gas exchange, reduced the inspiratory effort, and attenuated alveolar edema and inflammatory infiltration as compared to conventional pressure support ventilation.
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: Thomas Kiss; Andreas Güldner; Thomas Bluth; Christopher Uhlig; Peter Markus Spieth; Klaus Markstaller; Roman Ullrich; Samir Jaber; Jose Alberto Santos; Jordi Mancebo; Luigi Camporota; Richard Beale; Guilherme Schettino; Felipe Saddy; Immaculada Vallverdú; Bärbel Wiedemann; Thea Koch; Marcus Josephus Schultz; Paolo Pelosi; Marcelo Gama de Abreu Journal: Trials Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Peter M Spieth; Andreas Güldner; Robert Huhle; Alessandro Beda; Thomas Bluth; Dierk Schreiter; Max Ragaller; Birgit Gottschlich; Thomas Kiss; Samir Jaber; Paolo Pelosi; Thea Koch; Marcelo Gama de Abreu Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Christopher Uhlig; Pedro L Silva; Débora Ornellas; Raquel S Santos; Paulo J Miranda; Peter M Spieth; Thomas Kiss; Michael Kasper; Bärbel Wiedemann; Thea Koch; Marcelo M Morales; Paolo Pelosi; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Patricia Rm Rocco Journal: Respir Res Date: 2014-05-02