Andre Dos Santos Rocha1, Roberta Südy1, Davide Bizzotto2, Miklos Kassai1, Tania Carvalho3, Raffaele L Dellacà2, Ferenc Peták4, Walid Habre1. 1. Unit for Anaesthesiological Investigations, Department of Acute Medicine, University Hospitals of Geneva, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 2. Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. 3. Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. 4. Department of Medical Physics and Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The advantages of physiologically variable ventilation (PVV) based on a spontaneous breathing pattern have been demonstrated in several respiratory conditions. However, its potential benefits in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have not yet been characterized. We used an experimental model of COPD to compare respiratory function outcomes after 6 h of PVV versus conventional pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rabbits received nebulized elastase and lipopolysaccharide throughout 4 weeks. After 30 days, animals were anesthetized, tracheotomized, and randomized to receive 6 h of physiologically variable (n = 8) or conventional PCV (n = 7). Blood gases, respiratory mechanics, and chest fluoroscopy were assessed hourly. RESULTS: After 6 h of ventilation, animals receiving variable ventilation demonstrated significantly higher oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2 441 ± 37 (mean ± standard deviation) versus 354 ± 61 mmHg, p < 0.001) and lower respiratory elastance (359 ± 36 versus 463 ± 81 cmH2O/L, p < 0.01) than animals receiving PCV. Animals ventilated with the variable mode also presented less lung derecruitment (decrease in lung aerated area, -3.4 ± 9.9 versus -17.9 ± 6.7%, p < 0.01) and intrapulmonary shunt fraction (9.6 ± 4.1 versus 17.0 ± 5.8%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PVV applied to a model of COPD improved oxygenation, respiratory mechanics, lung aeration, and intrapulmonary shunt fraction compared to conventional ventilation. A reduction in alveolar derecruitment and lung tissue stress leading to better aeration and gas exchange may explain the benefits of PVV.
INTRODUCTION: The advantages of physiologically variable ventilation (PVV) based on a spontaneous breathing pattern have been demonstrated in several respiratory conditions. However, its potential benefits in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have not yet been characterized. We used an experimental model of COPD to compare respiratory function outcomes after 6 h of PVV versus conventional pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rabbits received nebulized elastase and lipopolysaccharide throughout 4 weeks. After 30 days, animals were anesthetized, tracheotomized, and randomized to receive 6 h of physiologically variable (n = 8) or conventional PCV (n = 7). Blood gases, respiratory mechanics, and chest fluoroscopy were assessed hourly. RESULTS: After 6 h of ventilation, animals receiving variable ventilation demonstrated significantly higher oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2 441 ± 37 (mean ± standard deviation) versus 354 ± 61 mmHg, p < 0.001) and lower respiratory elastance (359 ± 36 versus 463 ± 81 cmH2O/L, p < 0.01) than animals receiving PCV. Animals ventilated with the variable mode also presented less lung derecruitment (decrease in lung aerated area, -3.4 ± 9.9 versus -17.9 ± 6.7%, p < 0.01) and intrapulmonary shunt fraction (9.6 ± 4.1 versus 17.0 ± 5.8%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PVV applied to a model of COPD improved oxygenation, respiratory mechanics, lung aeration, and intrapulmonary shunt fraction compared to conventional ventilation. A reduction in alveolar derecruitment and lung tissue stress leading to better aeration and gas exchange may explain the benefits of PVV.
Authors: Juanita H J Vernooy; Mieke A Dentener; Robert J van Suylen; Wim A Buurman; Emiel F M Wouters Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: Arnaud Gacouin; Stephane Jouneau; Julien Letheulle; Mallory Kerjouan; Pierre Bouju; Pierre Fillatre; Yves Le Tulzo; Jean Marc Tadié Journal: Respir Care Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Gustavo Matute-Bello; Gregory Downey; Bethany B Moore; Steve D Groshong; Michael A Matthay; Arthur S Slutsky; Wolfgang M Kuebler Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: Sarah Engbers; Amy Larkin; Nicolas Rousset; Melanie Prebble; Mahesh Jonnalagadda; Cameron G Knight; Daniel S J Pang Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2017-04-10