4.6 Article

Positive end-expiratory pressure modulates local and systemic inflammatory responses in a sepsis-induced lung injury model

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 1345-1353

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-003-1756-5

关键词

acute lung injury; mechanical ventilation; sepsis; cytokine; acute respiratory distress syndrome; organ dysfunction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Previous animal studies have shown that certain modes of mechanical ventilation (MV) can injure the lungs. Most of those studies were performed with models that differ from clinical causes of respiratory failure. We examined the effects of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in the setting of a clinically relevant, in vivo animal model of sepsis-induced acute lung injury ventilated with low or injurious tidal volume. Methods: Septic male Sprague-Dawley rats were anesthetized and randomized to spontaneous breathing or four different strategies of MV for 3 h at low (6 ml/kg) or high (20 ml/kg) tidal volume (V-T) with zero PEEP or PEEP above inflection point in the pressure-volume curve. Sepsis was induced by cecal ligation and perforation. Mortality rates, pathological evaluation, lung tissue cytokine gene expression, and plasma cytokine concentrations were analyzed in all experimental groups. Results: Lung damage, cytokine synthesis and release, and mortality rates were significantly affected by the method of MV in the presence of sepsis. PEEP above the inflection point significantly attenuated lung damage and decreased mortality during 3 h of ventilation with low V-T (25% vs. 0%) and increased lung damage and mortality in the high V-T group (19% vs. 50%). PEEP attenuated lung cytokine gene expression and plasma concentrations during mechanical ventilation with low V-T. Conclusions: The use of a PEEP level above the inflection point in a sepsis-induced acute lung injury animal model modulates the pulmonary and systemic inflammatory responses associated with sepsis and decreases mortality during 3 h of MV.

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