4.6 Review

Ventilator-induced lung injury and multiple system organ failure:: a critical review of facts and hypotheses

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 1865-1872

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-004-2363-9

关键词

Biotrauma; Ventilator-induced lung injury; Multiple organ system failure; Compartmentalization; Peripheral immunosuppression; Proapoptotic soluble factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To review how biotrauma leads to the development of multiple system organ failure ( MSOF). Design and setting: Published articles on experimental and clinical studies and review articles in the English language were collected and analyzed. Results: The concept that ventilation strategies using large tidal volumes and zero PEEP of injured lungs can enhance injury by the release of inflammatory mediators into the lungs and circulation, a mechanism that has been called biotrauma, is supported by evidence from experimental models ranging from mechanically stressed cell systems, to isolated lungs, intact animals, and humans. Biotrauma may lead to MSOF via spillover of lung-borne inflammatory mediators into the systemic circulation. However, spillover of other agents such as bacteria and soluble proapoptotic factors may also contribute to the onset of MSOF. Other less well studied mechanisms such as peripheral immunosuppression and translocation of bacteria and/or products from the gut may play an important role. Finally, genetic variability is a crucial factor. Conclusions: The development of MSOF is a multifactorial process. Our proposed mechanisms linking mechanical ventilation and MSOF suggest several novel therapeutic approaches. However, it will first be necessary to study the mechanisms described above to delineate more precisely the contribution of each proposed factor, their interrelationships, and their time course. We suggest that scientific advances in immunology may offer novel approaches for prevention of MSOF secondary to ventilator-induced lung injury.

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