4.0 Article

From morphological heterogeneity at alveolar level to the overall mechanical lung behavior: an in vivo microscopic imaging study

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL REPORTS
卷 2, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/phy2.221

关键词

Alveolar mechanics; in vivo microscopy; multiscale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In six male anesthetized, tracheotomized, and mechanically ventilated rabbits, we imaged subpleural alveoli under microscopic view (609) through a pleural window obtained by stripping the endothoracic fascia and leaving the parietal pleura intact. Three different imaging scale levels were identified for the analysis on increasing stepwise local distending pressure (P-ld) up to 16.5 cmH(2)O: alveoli, alveolar cluster, and whole image field. Alveolar profiles were manually traced, clusters of alveoli of similar size were identified through a contiguityconstrained hierarchical agglomerative clustering analysis and alveolar surface density (ASD) was estimated as the percentage of air on the whole image field. Alveolar area distributions were remarkably right-skewed and showed an increase in median value with a large topology-independent heterogeneity on increasing P-ld. Modeling of alveolar area distributions on increasing Pld led to hypothesize that absolute alveolar compliance (change in surface area over change in P-ld) increases fairly linearly with increasing initial alveolar size, the corollary of this assumption being a constant specific compliance. Clusters were reciprocally interweaved due to their highly variable complex shapes. ASD was found to increase with a small coefficient of variation (CV < 25%) with increasing P-ld. The CV of lung volume at each transpulmonary pressure was further decreased (about 6%). The results of the study suggest that the considerable heterogeneity of alveolar size and of the corresponding alveolar mechanical behavior are homogenously distributed, resulting in a substantially homogenous mechanical behavior of lung units and whole organ.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据