| Literature DB >> 26446079 |
Thomas G V Cherpanath1, Lonneke Smeding2, Alexander Hirsch3, Wim K Lagrand4, Marcus J Schultz5, A B Johan Groeneveld6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High tidal volume ventilation has shown to cause ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), possibly contributing to concomitant extrapulmonary organ dysfunction. The present study examined whether left ventricular (LV) function is dependent on tidal volume size and whether this effect is augmented during lipopolysaccharide(LPS)-induced lung injury.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26446079 PMCID: PMC4597388 DOI: 10.1186/s12871-015-0123-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Anesthesiol ISSN: 1471-2253 Impact factor: 2.217
Baseline measurements in the rats before randomization (n = 20)
| Variable | LTV | LTV + LPS | HTV | HTV + LPS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respiration | |||||
| pH | 7.31 ± 0.02 | 7.31 ± 0.03 | 7.30 ± 0.02 | 7.32 ± 0.05 | 0.66 |
| PaCO2 (torr) | 40.3 ± 4.3 | 42.5 ± 4.1 | 42.6 ± 3.6 | 40.7 ± 3.1 | 0.68 |
| PaO2/FiO2 (torr) | 564 ± 60 | 538 ± 45 | 510 ± 31 | 525 ± 49 | 0.36 |
| Pmean (cmH2O) | 7.6 ± 0.5 | 7.8 ± 0.4 | 7.4 ± 0.5 | 7.8 ± 0.8 | 0.70 |
| Hemodynamics | |||||
| MAP (mmHg) | 100 ± 12 | 122 ± 23 | 105 ± 16 | 115 ± 23 | 0.28 |
| CVP (mmHg) | 1.4 ± 0.8 | 2.9 ± 0.9a | 1.5 ± 1.2 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 0.045 |
| HR (beats/min) | 343 ± 35 | 407 ± 46 | 360 ± 26 | 378 ± 49 | 0.12 |
| LV parameters | |||||
| ESP (mmHg) | 151 ± 16 | 157 ± 16 | 189 ± 36 | 174 ± 30 | 0.13 |
| EDP (mmHg) | 21 ± 9 | 16 ± 13 | 21 ± 5 | 18 ± 8 | 0.78 |
| dP/dtmax (mmHg/s) | 8043 ± 1689 | 8928 ± 2729 | 9912 ± 2709 | 8809 ± 2150 | 0.63 |
| dP/dtmin (mmHg/s) | −10080 ± 1609 | −11917 ± 2954 | −9741 ± 2230 | −11716 ± 2221 | 0.35 |
| Ees/Ea | 1.74 ± 0.64 | 2.03 ± 0.56 | 1.88 ± 0.89 | 1.74 ± 0.80 | 0.91 |
LTV low tidal volume ventilation, LPS lipopolysaccharide, HTV high tidal volume ventilation, CVP central venous pressure, dP/dt maximum rate of pressure development, dP/dt maximum rate of pressure decline, EDP end-diastolic pressure, ESP end-systolic pressure, Ees/Ea end-systolic elastance/effective arterial elastance ratio, HR heart rate, MAP mean arterial pressure, PaCO arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide, PaO/FiO arterial partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, Pmean mean airway pressure
aCVP was higher in the LTV + LPS group compared to the other groups. Data are mean values ± SD
Respiratory, hemodynamic and left ventricular measurements throughout the experiment in the rats (n = 20)
| Variable | LTV | LTV + LPS | HTV | HTV + LPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respiration | ||||
| pH | 7.31 ± 0.01 | 7.26 ± 0.02a,c | 7.36 ± 0.01a | 7.28 ± 0.02a,c |
| PaCO2 (torr) | 39.1 ± 1.7 | 47.0 ± 3.0a,c,d | 35.8 ± 1.3 | 37.8 ± 1.8 |
| PaO2/FiO2 (torr) | 534 ± 36 | 501 ± 23 | 485 ± 33 | 324 ± 28a,b,c |
| Pmean (cmH2O) | 7.6 ± 0.3 | 7.8 ± 0.2 | 8.3 ± 0.2a,b | 8.9 ± 0.2a,b,c |
| Hemodynamics | ||||
| MAP (mmHg) | 115 ± 8 | 116 ± 6 | 104 ± 6a,b | 98 ± 8a,b |
| CVP (mmHg) | 1.9 ± 0.3 | 2.2 ± 0.6 | 1.1 ± 0.3a,b | 0.7 ± 0.3a,b |
| HR (beats/min) | 393 ± 13 | 413 ± 9 | 362 ± 12a,b,d | 403 ± 9 |
| LV parameters | ||||
| ESP (mmHg) | 184 ± 12b,d | 154 ± 10 | 167 ± 12 | 146 ± 14 |
| EDP (mmHg) | 20 ± 4 | 17 ± 5 | 18 ± 2 | 17 ± 3 |
| dP/dtmax (mmHg/s) | 11740 ± 1114 | 11763 ± 1251 | 10343 ± 1000 | 9014 ± 682a,b |
| dP/dtmin (mmHg/s) | −13482 ± 1485 | −13072 ± 1103 | −11267 ± 990 | −8555 ± 1005a,b,c |
| Ees/Ea | 1.67 ± 0.33 | 1.45 ± 0.16 | 1.33 ± 0.13 | 0.86 ± 0.11a,b,c |
LTV low tidal volume ventilation, LPS lipopolysaccharide, HTV high tidal volume ventilation, CVP central venous pressure, dP/dt maximum rate of pressure development, dP/dt maximum rate of pressure decline, EDP end-diastolic pressure, ESP end-systolic pressure, Ees/Ea end-systolic elastance/effective arterial elastance ratio, HR heart rate, MAP mean arterial pressure, PaCO arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide, PaO/FiO arterial partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, Pmean mean airway pressure
aP < 0.05 compared to LTV group. bP < 0.05 compared to LTV + LPS group. cP < 0.05 compared to HTV group. dP < 0.05 compared to HTV + LPS group. Data are mean values ± SE
Fig. 1Pressure-volume loops obtained during three seconds showing left ventricular (LV) hemodynamics during steady state (a) and vena cava occlusion (b). a LV function is described during 4 phases of the cardiac cycle: 1) diastolic filling, 2) isovolumetric contraction, 3) ejection and 4) isovolumetric relaxation. EDP = end-diastolic pressure, ESP = end-systolic pressure, Ea = effective arterial elastance which slope is calculated by end-systolic pressure divided by stroke volume, dP/dtmax = maximum rate of pressure development during isovolumetric contraction, dP/dtmin = maximum rate of pressure decline during isovolumetric relaxation. b By decreasing preload through vena cava occlusion, the pressure-volume loops move to the left and become smaller, enabling the measurement of end-systolic elastance (Ees) by the pressure-volume relationship at end-systole. Simultaneously, end-diastolic elastance (Eed) can be measured by the pressure-volume relationship at end-diastole. A representative sample trace as displayed and analyzed by PVAN 3.6 is shown
Fig. 2Course of left ventricular end-systolic elastance/effective arterial elastance (Ees/Ea) (A) and end-diastolic elastance (Eed) (B) over time in the 4 rat groups. (○: low tidal volume (LTV), ●: LTV + lipopolysaccharide (LTV + LPS), □: high tidal volume (HTV), ■: HTV + LPS. a Ees/Ea decreased over time in all groups (p < 0.001) except for the LTV group (p = 0.428). A decrease in Ees/Ea was observed in the rats subjected to high tidal volume ventilation vs. low tidal volume ventilation (p = 0.007), as well in the rats receiving LPS vs. non-LPS (p = 0.045). b Eed remained unchanged over time in the LTV group (p = 0.223), but increased in the LTV + LPS (p = 0.036), HTV (p < 0.001) and HTV + LPS (p = 0.001) group. An interaction between tidal ventilation and LPS was found for Ees/Ea and Eed (p < 0.001) and all the rats receiving HTV + LPS died before the end of the experiment. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Error bars represent ± SE