Michael R Wilson1, Brijesh V Patel, Masao Takata. 1. Section of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, United Kingdom. michael.wilson@imperial.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ventilator-induced lung injury is a crucial determinant of the outcome of mechanically ventilated patients. Increasing numbers of mouse studies have identified numerous pathways and mediators that are modulated by ventilation, but it is conceptually difficult to reconcile these into a single paradigm. There is substantial variability in tidal volumes used in these studies and no certainty about the pathophysiology that such varied models actually represent. This study was designed to investigate whether ventilation strategies ranging from "very high" to more "clinically relevant" tidal volumes induce similar pathophysiologies in healthy mice or represent distinct entities. DESIGN: In vivo study. SETTING: University research laboratory. SUBJECTS: C57/Bl6 mice. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthetized mice were ventilated with various tidal volumes up to 40 mL/kg. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory system compliance and arterial blood gases were used to evaluate physiological variables of injury. Lung wet:dry weight ratio, lavage fluid protein, and cytokines were used to assess pulmonary edema and inflammation. All ventilation strategies induced changes in respiratory system compliance, although the pattern of change was unique for each strategy. Ventilation with 10 mL/kg and 40 mL/kg also induced decreases in arterial PO2 and blood pressure. Any physiological changes induced during the 10, 20, and 30 mL/kg strategies were largely reversed by recruitment maneuvers at the end of the protocol. Markers of pulmonary edema and inflammation indicated that only 40 mL/kg induced substantial increases in both, consistent with development of lung injury. CONCLUSIONS: Tidal volumes up to 20 mL/kg are unlikely to induce substantial lung overstretch in models using healthy, young mice. Signs of injury/inflammation using such models are likely to result from other factors, particularly alveolar derecruitment and atelectasis. The results of such studies may need to be reevaluated before clinical relevance can be accurately determined.
OBJECTIVE: Ventilator-induced lung injury is a crucial determinant of the outcome of mechanically ventilated patients. Increasing numbers of mouse studies have identified numerous pathways and mediators that are modulated by ventilation, but it is conceptually difficult to reconcile these into a single paradigm. There is substantial variability in tidal volumes used in these studies and no certainty about the pathophysiology that such varied models actually represent. This study was designed to investigate whether ventilation strategies ranging from "very high" to more "clinically relevant" tidal volumes induce similar pathophysiologies in healthy mice or represent distinct entities. DESIGN: In vivo study. SETTING: University research laboratory. SUBJECTS: C57/Bl6 mice. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthetized mice were ventilated with various tidal volumes up to 40 mL/kg. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory system compliance and arterial blood gases were used to evaluate physiological variables of injury. Lung wet:dry weight ratio, lavage fluid protein, and cytokines were used to assess pulmonary edema and inflammation. All ventilation strategies induced changes in respiratory system compliance, although the pattern of change was unique for each strategy. Ventilation with 10 mL/kg and 40 mL/kg also induced decreases in arterial PO2 and blood pressure. Any physiological changes induced during the 10, 20, and 30 mL/kg strategies were largely reversed by recruitment maneuvers at the end of the protocol. Markers of pulmonary edema and inflammation indicated that only 40 mL/kg induced substantial increases in both, consistent with development of lung injury. CONCLUSIONS: Tidal volumes up to 20 mL/kg are unlikely to induce substantial lung overstretch in models using healthy, young mice. Signs of injury/inflammation using such models are likely to result from other factors, particularly alveolar derecruitment and atelectasis. The results of such studies may need to be reevaluated before clinical relevance can be accurately determined.
Authors: John A Belperio; Michael P Keane; Marie D Burdick; Vedang Londhe; Ying Ying Xue; Kewang Li; Roderick J Phillips; Robert M Strieter Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Anthony D Dorr; Michael R Wilson; Kenji Wakabayashi; Alicia C Waite; Brijesh V Patel; Nico van Rooijen; Kieran P O'Dea; Masao Takata Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2011-04-21
Authors: Roy G Brower; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Arthur Wheeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Szabolcs Bertok; Michael R Wilson; Peter J Morley; Ruud de Wildt; Andrew Bayliffe; Masao Takata Journal: Thorax Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Sharmila Choudhury; Michael R Wilson; Michael E Goddard; Kieran P O'Dea; Masao Takata Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2004-07-16 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Michael R Wilson; Sharmila Choudhury; Michael E Goddard; Kieran P O'Dea; Andrew G Nicholson; Masao Takata Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2003-06-13
Authors: Michael R Wilson; Joanne E Petrie; Michael W Shaw; Cong Hu; Charlotte M Oakley; Samantha J Woods; Brijesh V Patel; Kieran P O'Dea; Masao Takata Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Margit V Szabari; Kazue Takahashi; Yan Feng; Joseph J Locascio; Wei Chao; Edward A Carter; Marcos F Vidal Melo; Guido Musch Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: Joseph A Herbert; Michael S Valentine; Nivi Saravanan; Matthew B Schneck; Ramana Pidaparti; Alpha A Fowler; Angela M Reynolds; Rebecca L Heise Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Michelle M Mellenthin; Siyeon A Seong; Gregory S Roy; Elizabeth Bartolák-Suki; Katharine L Hamlington; Jason H T Bates; Bradford J Smith Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2019-05-02
Authors: Nadir Yehya; Yi Xin; Yousi Oquendo; Maurizio Cereda; Rahim R Rizi; Susan S Margulies Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 5.464