| Literature DB >> 33192546 |
Vitor Mori1,2, Bradford J Smith3, Bela Suki4, Jason H T Bates1.
Abstract
Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) is driven by the processes of volutrauma and atelectrauma, which can act synergistically to compromise the blood-gas barrier. We have postulated that this synergy arises through a rich-get-richer mechanism whereby atelectrauma causes holes to form in the blood-gas barrier while concomitant volutrauma causes susceptible holes to progressively enlarge as VILI worsens. We previously developed an analytical model based on this idea that accurately predicts the progressive increases in lung elastance seen immediately following a recruitment maneuver as VILI progresses over the course of hours. In the present study we extend this model to account for the rate of change of elastance, due to closure of lung units, in the minutes following a recruitment maneuver. We found that the distribution of unit closing velocities throughout the lung can be described by a power law with an exponent of -2 that matches previously published power laws associated with the dynamics of lung recruitment. Our model thus reveals lung collapse as an example of emergent complex behavior and links the dynamics of altered function in the injured lung to structural damage in a way that explains the mechanisms of injury progression arising from the ongoing stresses and strains applied by mechanical ventilation.Entities:
Keywords: acute lung injury; alveolar flooding; analytical model; lung elastance; surface tension
Year: 2020 PMID: 33192546 PMCID: PMC7662071 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2020.542744
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
FIGURE 1Drate (average ± SE) versus time as VILI developed in the 4 groups of mice (symbols) together with the model fits to Eq. 9 (lines). Black: V_t = 1.0 ml (RMSE = 0.35); Red: V_t = 1.1 ml (RMSE = 0.64); Green: V_t = 1.2 ml (RMSE = 0.36); Blue: V_t = 1.3 ml (RMSE = 0.65). The data were collected in a previous study (Smith et al., 2013) (RMSE – root mean squared residual.).
FIGURE 2Mean ± 2 SEM for the two key model parameters s_m (A) and k (B) and for the 4 groups, 1.0 ml (n = 6), 1.1 ml (n = 6), 1.2 ml (n = 5) and 1.3 ml (n = 4). Statistically significant differences between groups are indicated by: *P < 0.05), **P < 0.01.
FIGURE 3Joint paired 95% confidence regions for the model parameters. The optimum parameter values (those that minimize the root mean squared difference between measured and modeled Drate) are located at the centers of the ellipses. Black: V_t = 1.0 ml; Red: V_t = 1.1 ml; Green: V_t = 1.2 ml; Blue: V_t = 1.3 ml.
FIGURE 4Rate of change of lung stiffness (Drate) versus initial measurement of post-recruitment stiffness (H_1) measured in the 4 groups of mice (symbols) together with the model fits (lines). Black: V_t = 1.0 ml; Red: V_t = 1.1 ml; Green: V_t = 1.2 ml; Blue: V_t = 1.3 ml.
FIGURE 5Difference between modeled and measured Drate as a function of H_1 (open dots). Mean is represented by the full line whereas 95% interval (± 1.96 SD) is represented by dashed lines.