Literature DB >> 8989171

Influence of prone position on the extent and distribution of lung injury in a high tidal volume oleic acid model of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

A F Broccard1, R S Shapiro, L L Schmitz, S A Ravenscraft, J J Marini.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of body position on the extent and distribution of experimental lung damage in an oleic acid canine model of acute respiratory distress syndrome, using mechanical ventilation with high tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP).
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study.
SETTING: Experimental animal laboratory.
SUBJECTS: Twelve anesthetized and paralyzed dogs.
INTERVENTIONS: Ninety minutes after lung injury was induced by injection of oleic acid, 12 animals were randomized to be ventilated for 4 hrs, in either the supine (supine group, n = 6) or prone (prone group, n = 6) positions, using the same ventilatory pattern (F10(2) 0.6, PEEP > or = 10 cm H2O, and a tidal volume that generated a peak transpulmonary pressure of 35 cm H2O when implemented in the supine position). Regardless of randomization to position, the tidal volumes, F10(2), and PEEP were kept constant and the pulmonary artery occlusion pressure was maintained between 4 and 6 mm Hg for the duration of the study.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At the end of the protocol, the lungs were excised for gravimetric determination (wet/dry weight ratio) and histologic examination (histologic score). Changes over time in the static pressure-volume curve of the lungs (obtained in the supine position) were also used as end-point variables. At baseline, hemodynamic and respiratory variables did not differ between groups. Just before randomization to position (90 mins after oleic acid injection), both groups presented similar lung static pressure-volume curves. Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (4.3 +/- 1.9 vs. 4.8 +/- 1.3 mm Hg [supine vs. prone group]), cardiac output (4.1 +/- 0.4 vs. 5.2 +/- 1.3 L/min [supine vs. prone group]), and venous admixture (36.7 +/- 20.7% vs. 28.3 +/- 19.4% [supine vs. prone group]) were also not significantly (p > .05) different when measured in the supine position. At the end of the experiment, lung gravimetric data in the two experimental groups were not statistically different, suggesting a similar extent of edema. Histologic abnormalities, however, were less in the prone group than in the supine group (p < .01), due primarily to marked differences in extent and severity in the dependent regions of the lungs. Static lung compliance improved over time in the prone group (34 +/- 9 to 46 +/- 19 mL/cm H2O)(p = .02), but not in the supine group (34 +/- 6 to 36 +/- 6 mL/cm H2O).
CONCLUSIONS: After oleic acid-induced lung injury, animals ventilated with high tidal volume and PEEP undergo less extensive histologic change in the prone position than in the supine position. The prone position alters the distribution of histologic abnormalities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 8989171     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199701000-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  31 in total

Review 1.  New and conventional strategies for lung recruitment in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  Paolo Pelosi; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Patricia R M Rocco
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-03-09       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 2.  Did studies on HFOV fail to improve ARDS survival because they did not decrease VILI? On the potential validity of a physiological concept enounced several decades ago.

Authors:  Didier Dreyfuss; Jean-Damien Ricard; Stéphane Gaudry
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Effect of prone position on regional shunt, aeration, and perfusion in experimental acute lung injury.

Authors:  Torsten Richter; Giacomo Bellani; R Scott Harris; Marcos F Vidal Melo; Tilo Winkler; Jose G Venegas; Guido Musch
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2005-05-18       Impact factor: 21.405

4.  The Effects of Prone Position Ventilation on Experimental Mild Acute Lung Injury Induced by Intraperitoneal Lipopolysaccharide Injection in Rats.

Authors:  Aydra Mendes Almeida Bianchi; Maycon Moura Reboredo; Leda Marília Fonseca Lucinda; Fernando Fonseca Reis; Manfrinni Vinícius Alves Silva; Maria Aparecida Esteves Rabelo; Marcelo Alcantara Holanda; Júlio César Abreu Oliveira; José Ángel Lorente; Bruno do Valle Pinheiro
Journal:  Lung       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 2.584

5.  Prone positioning for ARDS: defining the target.

Authors:  John J Marini
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 6.  Treatment of ARDS With Prone Positioning.

Authors:  Eric L Scholten; Jeremy R Beitler; G Kim Prisk; Atul Malhotra
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 9.410

7.  Short-term effects of prone position in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with severe acute hypoxemic and hypercapnic respiratory failure.

Authors:  Jean Reignier; Olivier Lejeune; Benoit Renard; Maud Fiancette; Christine Lebert; Frederic Bontemps; Eva Clementi; Laurent Martin-Lefevre
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-07-06       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 8.  Efficacy of prone position in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: A pathophysiology-based review.

Authors:  Vasilios Koulouras; Georgios Papathanakos; Athanasios Papathanasiou; Georgios Nakos
Journal:  World J Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-05-04

9.  Spatial distribution of sequential ventilation during mechanical ventilation of the uninjured lung: an argument for cyclical airway collapse and expansion.

Authors:  Scott E Sinclair; Nayak L Polissar; William A Altemeier
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2010-05-05       Impact factor: 3.317

10.  The role of the lactate dehydrogenase and the effect of prone position during ventilator-induced lung injury.

Authors:  Sung Chul Lim; Yu Il Kim
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.