| Literature DB >> 33244048 |
Yan Zhu1, Zubair H Aghai1,2, Suhita Gayen Nee Betal1,2, Michael Favara2, Gina Fong2,3, Tariq Rahman1, Thomas H Shaffer4,5.
Abstract
Pulmonary function testing (PFT) is an important component for evaluating the outcome of experimental rodent models of respiratory diseases. Respiratory inductance plethysmography (RIP) provides a noninvasive method of PFT requiring minimal cooperation. RIP measures work of breathing (WOB) indices including phase angle (Ф), percent rib cage (RC %), breaths per minute (BPM), and labored breathing index (LBI) on an iPad. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of a recently developed research instrument, pneuRIP, for evaluation of WOB indices in a developmental rat model. Sprague Dawley rats (2 months old) were commercially acquired and anaesthetised with isoflurane. The pneuRIP system uses two elastic bands: one band (RC) placed around the rib cage under the upper armpit and another band (AB) around the abdomen. The typical thoracoabdominal motion (TAM) plot showed the abdomen and rib cage motion in synchrony. The plots of phase angle and LBI as a function of data point number showed that values were within the range. The distribution for phase angle and LBI was within a narrow range. pneuRIP testing provided instantaneous PFT results. This study demonstrated the utility of RIP as a rapid, noninvasive approach for evaluating treatment interventions in the rodent model.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33244048 PMCID: PMC7691344 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-77731-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(a) Respiratory inductance plethysmography using the pneuRIP. The pneuRIP system uses two elastic bands: one band (RC) placed around the rib cage under the upper armpit and another band (AB) around the abdomen. (b) The pneuRIP wirelessly connects to the iPad and displays data in real-time plots.
Physiologic and pulmonary function summary (mean ± SEM).
| Weight (g) | HR (beats/min) | SPO2 (%) | ETCO2 (mmHg) | BPM (breaths/min) | Phase angle (°) | RC % | LBI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 245.9 | 345.2 | 95.8 | 27.2 | 56.6 | 8.94 | 53.19 | 1.04 |
| SEM | 24.94 | 10.30 | 0.73 | 0.97 | 5.06 | 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.001 |
SEM standard error of the mean, HR heart rate, SPO saturation of peripheral oxygen, ETCO end-tidal carbon dioxide, BPM breaths per minute, RC % percent rib cage, LBI labored breathing index.
Figure 2A typical plot of the thoracoabdominal motion (TAM) as a function of sample number/time. As illustrated, the abdomen (AB) and rib cage (RC) motion were of similar amplitude and almost superimposed as a function of sample number/time. The plot showed the abdomen and rib cage motion both in synchrony.
Figure 3Typical plots of phase angle (Ф) and LBI as a function of data point number/time in an individual rat during the same recording segment as shown in (a) and (b): (a) The phase angle values were within the range (0 ≤ Ф ≤ 20°); (b) The LBI values were within the range (1 ≤ Ф ≤ 1.16). Histograms of five rat data in phase angle and LBI as shown in (c) and (d): (c) Phase angle histogram of five rat data: 96.2% of the data values were within the range (0 ≤ φ ≤ 30°) with a mean ± SEM of 8.94 ± 0.22; (d) LBI histogram of five rat data: 88.5% of the data values were within the range with a mean ± SEM of 1.04 ± 0.001.