Ernesto Lopez1, Osamu Fujiwara, Francisco Lima-Lopez, Oscar E Suman, Ronald P Mlcak, Hal K Hawkins, Robert A Cox, David N Herndon, Donald S Prough, Perenlei Enkhbaatar. 1. 1Department of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX. 2Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, and Shriners Hospital for Children, Galveston, TX. 3Department of Respiratory Care, University of Texas Medical Branch, and Shriners Hospital for Children, Galveston, TX. 4Department of Pathology, University of Texas Medical Branch, and Shriners Hospital for Children, Galveston, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that nebulized epinephrine ameliorates pulmonary dysfunction by dual action-bronchodilation (β2-adrenergic receptor agonism) and attenuation of airway hyperemia (α1-adrenergic receptor agonism) with minimal systemic effects. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, prospective, and large animal translational studies. SETTING: University large animal ICU. SUBJECTS: Twelve chronically instrumented sheep. INTERVENTIONS: The animals were exposed to 40% total body surface area third degree skin flame burn and 48 breaths of cooled cotton smoke inhalation under deep anesthesia and analgesia. The animals were then placed on a mechanical ventilator, fluid resuscitated, and monitored for 48 hours in a conscious state. After the injury, sheep were randomized into two groups: 1) epinephrine, nebulized with 4 mg of epinephrine every 4 hours starting 1 hour post injury, n = 6; or 2) saline, nebulized with saline in the same manner, n = 6. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Treatment with epinephrine had a significant reduction of the pulmonary transvascular fluid flux to water (p < 0.001) and protein (p < 0.05) when compared with saline treatment from 12 to 48 hours and 36 to 48 hours, respectively. Treatment with epinephrine also reduced the systemic accumulation of body fluids (p < 0.001) with a mean of 1,410 ± 560 mL at 48 hours compared with 3,284 ± 422 mL of the saline group. Hemoglobin levels were comparable between the groups. Changes in respiratory system dynamic compliance, mean airway pressure, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and oxygenation index were also attenuated with epinephrine treatment. No considerable systemic effects were observed with epinephrine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Nebulized epinephrine should be considered for use in future clinical studies of patients with burns and smoke inhalation injury.
OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that nebulized epinephrine ameliorates pulmonary dysfunction by dual action-bronchodilation (β2-adrenergic receptor agonism) and attenuation of airway hyperemia (α1-adrenergic receptor agonism) with minimal systemic effects. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, prospective, and large animal translational studies. SETTING: University large animal ICU. SUBJECTS: Twelve chronically instrumented sheep. INTERVENTIONS: The animals were exposed to 40% total body surface area third degree skin flame burn and 48 breaths of cooled cotton smoke inhalation under deep anesthesia and analgesia. The animals were then placed on a mechanical ventilator, fluid resuscitated, and monitored for 48 hours in a conscious state. After the injury, sheep were randomized into two groups: 1) epinephrine, nebulized with 4 mg of epinephrine every 4 hours starting 1 hour post injury, n = 6; or 2) saline, nebulized with saline in the same manner, n = 6. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Treatment with epinephrine had a significant reduction of the pulmonary transvascular fluid flux to water (p < 0.001) and protein (p < 0.05) when compared with saline treatment from 12 to 48 hours and 36 to 48 hours, respectively. Treatment with epinephrine also reduced the systemic accumulation of body fluids (p < 0.001) with a mean of 1,410 ± 560 mL at 48 hours compared with 3,284 ± 422 mL of the saline group. Hemoglobin levels were comparable between the groups. Changes in respiratory system dynamic compliance, mean airway pressure, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and oxygenation index were also attenuated with epinephrine treatment. No considerable systemic effects were observed with epinephrine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Nebulized epinephrine should be considered for use in future clinical studies of patients with burns and smoke inhalation injury.
Authors: Anne M Lachiewicz; Felicia N Williams; Shannon S Carson; Jessica M Trexler; Carrie A Nielsen; David van Duin; David J Weber; Shannon D Williams; Samuel W Jones; Bruce A Cairns Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2017 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Guillermo Foncerrada; Derek M Culnan; Karel D Capek; Sagrario González-Trejo; Janos Cambiaso-Daniel; Lee C Woodson; David N Herndon; Celeste C Finnerty; Jong O Lee Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Satoshi Fukuda; Yosuke Niimi; Clark R Andersen; Ennert R Manyeza; Jose D Rojas; Donald S Prough; Perenlei Enkhbaatar Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Guillermo Foncerrada; Francisco Lima; Robert P Clayton; Ronald P Mlcak; Perenlei Enkhbaatar; David N Herndon; Oscar E Suman Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2017 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Satoshi Fukuda; Koji Ihara; Julia K Bohannon; Antonio Hernandez; Naeem K Patil; Liming Luan; Cody Stothers; Ryan Stark; Donald S Prough; David N Herndon; Edward R Sherwood; Perenlei Enkhbaatar Journal: Shock Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Perenlei Enkhbaatar; Basil A Pruitt; Oscar Suman; Ronald Mlcak; Steven E Wolf; Hiroyuki Sakurai; David N Herndon Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ben Antebi; Kerfoot P Walker; Arezoo Mohammadipoor; Luis A Rodriguez; Robbie K Montgomery; Andriy I Batchinsky; Leopoldo C Cancio Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 6.832