| Literature DB >> 26796635 |
Constantin J C Trepte1, Charles R Phillips2, Josep Solà3, Andy Adler4, Sebastian A Haas5, Michael Rapin6, Stephan H Böhm7, Daniel A Reuter8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessment of pulmonary edema is a key factor in monitoring and guidance of therapy in critically ill patients. To date, methods available at the bedside for estimating the physiologic correlate of pulmonary edema, extravascular lung water, often are unreliable or require invasive measurements. The aim of the present study was to develop a novel approach to reliably assess extravascular lung water by making use of the functional imaging capabilities of electrical impedance tomography.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26796635 PMCID: PMC4722629 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-015-1173-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care ISSN: 1364-8535 Impact factor: 9.097
Fig. 1Process for extracting the tidal ventilation of the left lung and the tidal ventilation of the right lung (TVL and TVR, respectively) from sets of electrical impedance tomographic images. RMS root mean square
Fig. 2Calculation of lung water ratioEIT: Trend slopes (TS) computed from the imbalance coefficient (IML–R) of each pig in the three different body positions of the protocol. a Conditions in healthy lungs. b Conditions in injured lungs
Ventilation data before and after induction of experimental lung injury
| pAWP (cmH2O) | mAWP (cmH2O) | dc (ml/cmH2O) | paO2 (mmHg) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | ||||
| Group 1 (sham) | 22.8 ± 3.7 | 14.2 ± 1.0 | 23.3 ± 5.1 | 551 ± 63 |
| Group 2 (lavage) | 27.7 ± 7.2 | 16.1 ± 3.0 | 18.2 ± 6.5 | 524 ± 68 |
| Group 3 (oleic acid) | 23.1 ± 2.8 | 14.3 ± 1.3 | 21.4 ± 3.8 | 507 ± 95 |
| Lung injury | ||||
| Group 1 (sham) | 21.9 ± 2.3 | 13.9 ± 0.8 | 24.4 ± 5.1 | 527 ± 122 |
| Group 2 (lavage) | 35.5 ± 7.1a | 17.7 ± 3.3 | 11.8 ± 2.5a | 186 ± 155a |
| Group 3 (oleic acid) | 35.0 ± 5.4a | 17.1 ± 1.9a | 11.5 ± 2.3a | 146 ± 116a |
pAWP on peak airway pressure, mAWP mean airway pressure, dc dynamic respiratory system compliance, paO arterial partial pressure of oxygen
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation
aStatistically significant differences between baseline and lung injury (p < 0.05)
Fig. 3Box plots for lung water ratioEIT. Data for the three study groups before and after induction of experimental lung injury are presented. *Statistically significant difference compared with baseline before lung injury (p < 0.05)
Changes of lung water ratioEIT with induction of acute lung injury
| Group | Baseline lung water ratioEIT | Injury lung water ratioEIT |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (sham) | −0.127 ± 0.184 | −0.170 ± 0.054 |
| Group 2 (lavage) | −0.209 ± 0.098 | 0.0679 ± 0.174a |
| Group 3 (oleic acid) | −0.189 ± 0.078 | 0.110 ± 0.120a |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation
aStatistically significant differences between baseline and lung injury (p < 0.05)
Extravascular lung water by transcardiopulmonary thermodilution
| EVLWTD (ml m−2) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Group | Baseline | Injury |
| Group 1 (sham) | 327.0 ± 86.4 | 346.3 ± 55.6 |
| Group 2 (lavage) | 316.7 ± 32.6 | 630.4 ± 179.6a |
| Group 3 (oleic acid) | 366.7 ± 167.7 | 488.3 ± 173.8a |
EVLW extravascular lungwater measured by transcardiopulmonary thermodilution
aStatistically significant difference between baseline and lung injury (p < 0.05)
Fig. 4Correlation of lung water ratioEIT after induction of experimental lung injury and extravascular lung water (EVLW) by postmortem gravimetry