Hanmo Li1, Andrew Bersten2,3, Ubbo Wiersema2, David Schembri4, Elena Cavallaro3, Dani-Louise Dixon2,3, Shailesh Bihari2,3. 1. Intensive and Critical Care Unit, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia. Hanmo.Li@sa.gov.au. 2. Intensive and Critical Care Unit, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia. 3. Department of Critical Care Medicine, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 4. Respiratory Functions Laboratory, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Bolus intravenous administration of 0.9% saline has been associated with the development of pulmonary edema, and increased mortality. An animal model has previously demonstrated that rapid intravenous administration of 0.9% saline was associated with non-hydrostatic lung injury with increased lung lavage protein. We hypothesized that this non-hydrostatic effect would also occur in human volunteers. METHODS: In a randomized, cross-over study of 14 healthy male subjects, the lung lavage protein concentration and cardiorespiratory effects of an intervention with rapid intravenous administration of 30 mL/kg of 0.9% saline were compared with sham intervention. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was performed after fluid administration. Doppler echocardiography, lung ultrasound, pulmonary function tests, and blood sampling were performed before and after each intervention. RESULTS: The BAL total protein concentration was greater after 0.9% saline administration than with sham (196.1 µg/mL (SD 87.6) versus 129.8 µg/mL (SD 55.4), respectively (p = 0.020). Plasma angiopoietin-2 concentration was also increased to 2.26 ng/mL (SD 0.87) after 0.9% saline administration compared with sham 1.53 ng/mL (SD 0.69) (p < 0.001). There were small increases in stroke volume (from 58 mL (IQR 51-74) to 66 mL (IQR 58-74), p = 0.045) and Doppler echocardiography left ventricle E/e' ratio (from 5.0 (IQR 4.5-6.0) to 5.7 (IQR 5.3-6.3), p = 0.007), but no changes to right ventricular function. CONCLUSION: Rapid intravenous administration of 0.9% saline leads to interstitial permeability pulmonary edema in healthy human volunteers. Further research is now warranted to understand these effects in critically ill patients.
PURPOSE: Bolus intravenous administration of 0.9% saline has been associated with the development of pulmonary edema, and increased mortality. An animal model has previously demonstrated that rapid intravenous administration of 0.9% saline was associated with non-hydrostatic lung injury with increased lung lavage protein. We hypothesized that this non-hydrostatic effect would also occur in human volunteers. METHODS: In a randomized, cross-over study of 14 healthy male subjects, the lung lavage protein concentration and cardiorespiratory effects of an intervention with rapid intravenous administration of 30 mL/kg of 0.9% saline were compared with sham intervention. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was performed after fluid administration. Doppler echocardiography, lung ultrasound, pulmonary function tests, and blood sampling were performed before and after each intervention. RESULTS: The BAL total protein concentration was greater after 0.9% saline administration than with sham (196.1 µg/mL (SD 87.6) versus 129.8 µg/mL (SD 55.4), respectively (p = 0.020). Plasma angiopoietin-2 concentration was also increased to 2.26 ng/mL (SD 0.87) after 0.9% saline administration compared with sham 1.53 ng/mL (SD 0.69) (p < 0.001). There were small increases in stroke volume (from 58 mL (IQR 51-74) to 66 mL (IQR 58-74), p = 0.045) and Doppler echocardiography left ventricle E/e' ratio (from 5.0 (IQR 4.5-6.0) to 5.7 (IQR 5.3-6.3), p = 0.007), but no changes to right ventricular function. CONCLUSION: Rapid intravenous administration of 0.9% saline leads to interstitial permeability pulmonary edema in healthy human volunteers. Further research is now warranted to understand these effects in critically ill patients.
Authors: Drayton A Hammond; Simon W Lam; Megan A Rech; Melanie N Smith; Jennifer Westrick; Abhaya P Trivedi; Robert A Balk Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Carolyn S Calfee; Diana Gallagher; Jason Abbott; B Taylor Thompson; Michael A Matthay Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Laura C Barr; Mairi Brittan; Andrew Conway Morris; Daniel F McAuley; Chiara McCormack; Alison M Fletcher; Hamish Richardson; Martin Connell; Dilip Patel; William A H Wallace; Adriano G Rossi; Donald J Davidson; Lynn Manson; Marc Turner; Nikhil Hirani; Timothy S Walsh; Niall H Anderson; Kevin Dhaliwal; A John Simpson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Shailesh Bihari; Dani-Louise Dixon; Mark D Lawrence; Dylan De Bellis; Claudine S Bonder; David P Dimasi; Andrew D Bersten Journal: Pflugers Arch Date: 2017-04-29 Impact factor: 3.657
Authors: Brian L Graham; Irene Steenbruggen; Martin R Miller; Igor Z Barjaktarevic; Brendan G Cooper; Graham L Hall; Teal S Hallstrand; David A Kaminsky; Kevin McCarthy; Meredith C McCormack; Cristine E Oropez; Margaret Rosenfeld; Sanja Stanojevic; Maureen P Swanney; Bruce R Thompson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Armin A Quispe-Cornejo; Ana L Alves da Cunha; Hassane Njimi; Wasineenart Mongkolpun; Ana L Valle-Martins; Mónica Arébalo-López; Jacques Creteur; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Crit Care Date: 2022-10-23 Impact factor: 19.334