4.7 Article

Oleic acid vs saline solution lung lavage-induced acute lung injury - Effects on lung morphology, pressure-volume relationships, and response to positive end-expiratory pressure

期刊

CHEST
卷 130, 期 2, 页码 392-401

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1378/chest.130.2.392

关键词

CT; lung injury models; oleic acid; recruitment; saline solution washout

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare two lung injury models (oleic acid [OA] and saline solution washout [SW]) regarding lung morphology, regional inflation, and recruitment during static pressure-volume (PV) curves, and the effects of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) below and above the lower inflection point (Pflex). Methods: Fourteen adult pigs underwent OA or SW lung injury. Lung volumes were measured using CT. PV curves were obtained with simultaneous CT scanning at lung apex and base. Fractional inflation and recruitment were compared to data on PEEP above and below Pflex. Results: Severity of lung injury was comparable. At zero PEEP, SW showed an increased amount of edema and poorly aerated lung volume, recruitment during inspiration, and a better oxygenation response with PEEP. Whole-lung PV curves were similar in both models, reflecting changes in alveolar inflation or deflation. On the inspiratory PV limb, recruitment and inflation were on the same line, while there was a substantial difference between deflation and derecruitment on the expiratory limb. PEEP-induced recruitment at lung apex and base was at or above the derecruitment line on the expiratory limb and showed no relationship to the whole-lung expiratory PV curve. Conclusions: The following conclusions were made: (1) OA and SW models are comparable in mechanics but not in lung injury characteristics; (2) neither inspiratory nor expiratory whole-lung PV curves are useful to select PEEP in order to optimize recruitment; and (3) after recruitment, there is no difference in derecruitment between the models at high PEEP, while more collapse occurs at lower PEEP in the basal sections of SW lungs.

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

4.7
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