| Literature DB >> 27936178 |
Giulia Alessandra Bassani1,2, Caterina Lonati1,2, Daniela Brambilla1, Francesca Rapido3, Franco Valenza2,3, Stefano Gatti1.
Abstract
Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) is a promising procedure for evaluation, reconditioning, and treatment of marginal lungs before transplantation. Small animal models can contribute to improve clinical development of this technique and represent a substantial platform for bio-molecular investigations. However, to accomplish this purpose, EVLP models must sustain a prolonged reperfusion without pharmacological interventions. Currently available protocols only partly satisfy this need. The aim of the present research was accomplishment and optimization of a reproducible model for a protracted rat EVLP in the absence of anti-inflammatory treatment. A 180 min, uninjured and untreated perfusion was achieved through a stepwise implementation of the protocol. Flow rate, temperature, and tidal volume were gradually increased during the initial reperfusion phase to reduce hemodynamic and oxidative stress. Low flow rate combined with open atrium and protective ventilation strategy were applied to prevent lung damage. The videos enclosed show management of the most critical technical steps. The stability and reproducibility of the present procedure were confirmed by lung function evaluation and edema assessment. The meticulous description of the protocol provided in this paper can enable other laboratories to reproduce it effortlessly, supporting research in the EVLP field.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27936178 PMCID: PMC5148015 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167898
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Reagents employed.
| Reagent | Manufacturer |
|---|---|
| Thiopental sodium, 0.5 g | Inresa Arzneimittel GmbH, Freiburg, Germany |
| Heparin, 5000 UI/ml | Pharmatex Italia S.r.l., Milano, Italy |
| Perfadex® | XVIVO Perfusion AB, Gotebörg, Sweden |
| NaHCO3, 8.4% | S.A.L.F. S.p.A. Laboratorio Farmacologico, Bergamo, Italy |
| CaCl2, 1.36 mEq/ml | Bioindustria L.I.M. S.p.A., Novi Ligure, Italy |
| Mucasol™ universal detergent | Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Missouri, United States |
| Basic Glutaster | Farmec, Settimo di Pescantina, Italy |
| Albumin, 0.2 g/ml 20% immuno | Baxter S.p.A., Roma, Italy |
| NaCl, 0.9% | Baxter S.p.A. |
| Amphotericin B, 250 μg/ml | Life Technologies, Foster City, California, United States |
| Glucose, 33% | B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany |
| KCl, 2 mEq/ml | B. Braun |
| K3PO4, 2 mEq/ml | S.A.L.F. S.p.A. Laboratorio Farmacologico |
| MgSO4, 0.8 mEq/ml | S.A.L.F. S.p.A. Laboratorio Farmacologico |
| Cefazolin, 0.1 g/ml | Pfizer Italia S.r.l., Latina, Italy |
| Gas mixture of CO2 (5%), O2 (21%) and N2 (74%) | Sapio S.r.l., Monza, Italy |
| LB agar | Sigma-Aldrich |
Instruments employed.
| Instrument | Manufacturer |
|---|---|
| Temperature control unit HB 101/2 RS | Panlab Harvard Apparatus, Barcelona, Spain |
| Surgical heating pad | Panlab Harvard Apparatus |
| Isolated lung perfusion systems size 2 | Hugo Sachs Elektronik, Harvard Apparatus GmbH, March-Hugstetten, Germany |
| Roller pump | Ismatec, Wertheim, Germany |
| Heat exchanger Ecoline E 103 | Lauda Dr. R. Wobser Gmbh & Co. Kg, Lauda-Konigshofen, Germany |
| Harvard model 683 small animal ventilator | Harvard Apparatus, Holliston, Massachusetts, United States |
| Automatic blood gas analyzer ABL 800 FLEX | A. De Mori Strumenti, Milano, Italy |
| Data acquisition software Colligo | Elekton, Milano, Italy |
| Analytical balance ABT 100-5M | KERN & SOHN GmbH, Balingen, Germany |
| Oven | LTE Scientific, Greenfield, United Kingdom |
| 14 G tube | Delta Med S.p.A, Viadana, Italy |
| 2.0/2.5 mm pulmonary cannula | Hugo Sachs Elektronik |
| Double-headed surgical microscope OPMI 1-F | Zeiss West Germany, Oberkochen, Germany |
| 1.3 mm temperature probe | Panlab Harvard Apparatus |
| 5F Swan-Ganz catheter | Pulsion Medical System SE, Feldkirchen, Germany |
| Laminar flow hood | Gelaire ICN Biomedicals, Sydney, Australia |
| Filtropur V 100 0.22 μm | Sarstedt, Numbrecht, Germany |
Fig 1Learning curves.
(A) Surgical preparation time (from heparin administration to flushing; R = 0.291, p = 0.397). (B) Procurement time (from flushing to harvest; R = 0.660, p = 0.0003); (C) Connection time (from harvest to lung connection to the circuit; R = 0.299, p = 0.370). Nonlinear regression analysis.
Fig 2Protocol timeline.
Schematic overview of EVLP protocol. Abbreviations: VT, tidal volume; RR, respiratory rate; PEEP, positive end expiratory pressure.
Changes over time in perfusion fluid parameters.
| Perfusion time, min | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 60 | 120 | 180 | |
| 7.224 ± 0.006 | 7.340 ± 0.007 | 7.336 ± 0.006 | 7.331 ± 0.008 | |
| -11.8 ± 0.4 | -11.4 ± 0.4 | -12.1 ± 0.3 | -12.7 ± 0.4 | |
| 175 ± 2 | 155 ± 3 | 154 ± 3 | 153 ± 3 | |
| 36.2 ± 0.8 | 25.3 ± 0.5 | 24.2 ± 0.5 | 23.6 ± 0.5 | |
| 4.6 [4.5–4.8] | 4.7 [4.7–4.9] | 4.7 [4.7–4.9] | 4.8 [4.7–4.9] | |
| 145 ± 0 | 146 ± 0 | 147 ± 0 | 148 ± 0 | |
| 0.67 ± 0.01 | 0.61 ± 0.01 | 0.61 ± 0.01 | 0.61 ± 0.01 | |
| 107 ± 2 | 110 ± 1 | 112 ± 1 | 113 ± 1 | |
| 192 ± 3 | 186 ± 2 | 181 ± 2 | 175 ± 2 | |
| 0.0 ± 0.0 | 0.3 ± 0.0 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | |
Perfusate composition was monitored hourly using an automatic gas analyzer. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM or as the median [first quartile–third quartile]. One-way repeated measures ANOVA; p value was <0.001 for each parameter considered. Tukey’s multiple comparison test
a p<0.05 vs time 0
b p<0.05 vs time 60
c p<0.05 vs time 120. Abbreviations: BE, base excess; pO2, partial pressure of oxygen; pCO2, partial pressure of carbon dioxide; Glc, glycemia; Lac, lactate concentration.
Fig 3Lung parameter changes during EVLP.
(A) Pulmonary artery pressure (PAP). (B) Total pulmonary vascular resistance (TPVR). (C) Peak inspiratory pressure (Ppeak). (D) Dynamic compliance (Cdyn). Pressure recruitment maneuvers (RMs) were performed at 40 and 175 min. Results are expressed as the mean ± SEM (N = 10). One-way repeated measures ANOVA; p value was <0.001 for each parameter considered. Tukey’s multiple comparison test.
General protocol features and perfusion fluid characteristics of recently reported EVLP rat models.
| General setting | Perfusion solution | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author, ref | Time, min | Atrium | De-oxygenator | Type | RBC | Antibiotics | Heparin | Anti-inflammatory |
| 180 | open | no | in-house | no | yes | yes | no | |
| 60 | closed | yes | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | |
| 240 | closed | yes | STEEN | NR | yes | NR | yes | |
| 140 | closed | yes | in-house | yes | NR | yes | NR | |
| 60 | closed | yes | STEEN | NR | NR | yes | NR | |
| 180 | open | NR | Krebs-Henseleit | NR | NR | NR | NR | |
| 60 | closed | yes | saline | yes | NR | yes | NR | |
| 180 | closed | no | in-house | NR | NR | NR | yes | |
| 75 | closed | no | In-house | yes/no | NR | NR | NR | |
| 120 | open | yes | venous blood | yes | NR | yes | NR | |
| 120 | open | yes | venous blood | yes | NR | yes | NR | |
The analysis included rat EVLP protocols recently published.
A Single lung ex vivo perfusion.
B Lung isolated from another rat.
Abbreviations: RBC, red blood cells; NR, not reported.
Comparison of reperfusion phase settings in recently reported rat EVLP protocols.
| Author, ref | Temperature, °C | Perfusion | Ventilation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flow, % D | PAP, mmHg | Start, min | VT, % | Ppeak, cmH2O | PEEP, cmH2O | RR, bpm | RMs | ||
| to 37.5 in 25 min | from 20 to 100% in 40 min | NR | 25 | from 70 to 100% in 10 min | NR | 3 | 35 | - | |
| 37 | to 100% in 15 min | NR | 0 | to 100% in 15 min | NR | 2 | NR | sigh | |
| from 20 to 37 in 30 min | from 10 to 100% in 60 min | 5–10 | 20 | NR | 14–15 | 5 | 30 | at 25 min | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| 37 | from 10 to 100% in 10 min | NR | 0 | NR | -8 | -4 | 60 | NR | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| NR | from 14–20 to 100% in 10–15 min | <15–20 | 0 | from 25 to 100% in 10 min | NR | NR | 60 | sigh | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| to 37 in 60 min | NR | <20 | 60 | 100% | <30 | 3 | 60 | NR | |
| 37 | to 100% in 10 min | NR | 0 | 100% | NR | 2 | 40 | NR | |
| 36–38 | to 100% in 10 min | NR | 0 | 100% | NR | 3 | 40 | at 0 min | |
Temperature, perfusion and ventilation settings in different research protocols are shown. “Reperfusion” denotes a transient phase in which the lungs are gradually re-warmed, perfused and ventilated until the target values are reached.
A Single-lung ex vivo perfusion.
B Lung temperature.
C Chamber pressure.
D Flow rate and VT are expressed as percent of target value.
Abbreviations: PAP, pulmonary artery pressure; VT, tidal volume; Ppeak, peak inspiratory pressure; PEEP, positive end expiratory pressure; RR, respiratory rate; RMs, recruitment maneuvers; NR, not reported.
Comparison of reconditioning phase settings in recently reported rat EVLP protocols.
| Author, ref | Temperature, °C | Perfusion | Ventilation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flow, ml/min | PAP, mmHg | VT, ml/kg | Ppeak, cmH2O | PEEP, cmH2O | RR, bpm | RMs | ||
| 37.5 | 5.7–7.6 | NR | 7 | NR | 3 | 35 | at 45 and 175 min | |
| 37 | 5–10 | NR | 4 | NR | 2 | NR | sigh | |
| 37 | 16.5 | 5–10 | NR | 14–15 | 5 | 30 | - | |
| 37 | 15 | 10 | 7 | NR | 1–2 | NR | sigh | |
| 37 | 10 | NR | NR | -8 | -4 | 60 | NR | |
| 37 | 0.08 | NR | 6.2 | NR | 2 | 60 | NR | |
| NR | 5–7 | <15–20 | 10 | NR | NR | 60 | sigh | |
| 38 | 12 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | - | |
| 37 | NR | <20 | 10 | <30 | 3 | 60 | NR | |
| 37 | 4 | NR | 5.5 | NR | 2 | 40 | NR | |
| 36–38 | 3.8 | NR | 4 | NR | 3 | 40 | NR | |
Temperature, perfusion and ventilation settings in different research protocols are shown. The “reconditioning” phase achieves steady-state perfusion/ventilation.
A Single-lung ex vivo perfusion.
B Lung temperature.
C Chamber pressure.
D Measurement units were aligned.
Abbreviations: PAP, pulmonary artery pressure; VT, tidal volume; Ppeak, peak inspiratory pressure; PEEP, positive end expiratory pressure; RR, respiratory rate; RMs, recruitment maneuvers; NR, not reported.