4.6 Article

Patients with ARDS show improvement but not normalisation of alveolar surface activity with surfactant treatment: putative role of neutral lipids

期刊

THORAX
卷 62, 期 7, 页码 588-594

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thx.2006.062398

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Extensive biochemical and biophysical changes of the pulmonary surfactant system occur in the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: The effect of intrabronchial administration of a recombinant surfactant protein C-based surfactant preparation (Venticute) on gas exchange, surfactant composition and function was investigated in 31 patients with ARDS in a randomised controlled phase I/II clinical pilot trial. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluids for surfactant analysis were obtained 3 h before and 48 and 120 h after the first surfactant application. Potentially deleterious effects of surfactant neutral lipids in patients with ARDS were also identified. Results: Before treatment all patients had marked abnormalities in the surfactant phospholipid and protein composition. In response to surfactant treatment, gas exchange improved and surfactant phospholipid and protein content were almost normalised. Alveolar surface activity was dramatically impaired before treatment and only partially improved after surfactant administration. Further analysis of the bronchoalveolar lavage fluids revealed a twofold increase in neutral lipid content and altered neutral lipid profile in patients with ARDS compared with healthy controls. These differences persisted even after administration of large amounts of Venticute. Supplementation of Venticute or natural surfactant with a synthetic neutral lipid preparation, mimicking the profile in ARDS, caused a dose-dependent deterioration of surface activity in vitro. Conclusion: Intrabronchial surfactant treatment improves gas exchange in ARDS, but the efficacy may be limited by increased concentration and altered neutral lipid profile in surfactant under these conditions.

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

4.6
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