Impact of different frequencies of controlled breath and pressure-support levels during biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation on the lung and diaphragm in experimental mild acute respiratory distress syndrome

Alessandra F. Thompson; Lillian Moraes; Nazareth N. Rocha; Marcos V. S. Fernandes; Mariana A. Antunes; Soraia C. Abreu; Cintia L. Santos; Vera L. Capelozzi; Cynthia S. Samary; Marcelo G. de Abreu; Felipe Saddy; Paolo Pelosi; Pedro L. Silva; Patricia R. M. Rocco

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256021

Abstract

Background

We hypothesized that a decrease in frequency of controlled breaths during biphasic positive airway pressure (BIVENT), associated with an increase in spontaneous breaths, whether pressure support (PSV)-assisted or not, would mitigate lung and diaphragm damage in mild experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Materials and methods

Wistar rats received Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide intratracheally. After 24 hours, animals were randomly assigned to: 1) BIVENT-100+PSV_0%: airway pressure (P_high) adjusted to V_T = 6 mL/kg and frequency of controlled breaths (f) = 100 bpm; 2) BIVENT-50+PSV_0%: P_high adjusted to V_T = 6 mL/kg and f = 50 bpm; 3) BIVENT-50+PSV_50% (PSV set to half the P_high reference value, i.e., PSV_50%); or 4) BIVENT-50+PSV_100% (PSV equal to P_high reference value, i.e., PSV_100%). Positive end-expiratory pressure (P_low) was equal to 5 cmH₂O. Nonventilated animals were used for lung and diaphragm histology and molecular biology analysis.

Results

BIVENT-50+PSV_0%, compared to BIVENT-100+PSV_0%, reduced the diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) score, the expression of amphiregulin (marker of alveolar stretch) and muscle atrophy F-box (marker of diaphragm atrophy). In BIVENT-50 groups, the increase in PSV (BIVENT-50+PSV_50% versus BIVENT-50+PSV_100%) yielded better lung mechanics and less alveolar collapse, interstitial edema, cumulative DAD score, as well as gene expressions associated with lung inflammation, epithelial and endothelial cell damage in lung tissue, and muscle ring finger protein 1 (marker of muscle proteolysis) in diaphragm. Transpulmonary peak pressure (Ppeak,L) and pressure–time product per minute (PTP_min) at P_high were associated with lung damage, while increased spontaneous breathing at P_low did not promote lung injury.

Conclusion

In the ARDS model used herein, during BIVENT, the level of PSV and the phase of the respiratory cycle in which the inspiratory effort occurs affected lung and diaphragm damage. Partitioning of inspiratory effort and transpulmonary pressure in spontaneous breaths at P_low and P_high is required to minimize VILI.

Citation: Thompson AF, Moraes L, Rocha NN, Fernandes MVS, Antunes MA, Abreu SC, et al. (2021) Impact of different frequencies of controlled breath and pressure-support levels during biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation on the lung and diaphragm in experimental mild acute respiratory distress syndrome. PLoS ONE 16(8): e0256021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021

Editor: Andrea Coppadoro, San Gerardo Hospital, ITALY

Received: December 31, 2020; Accepted: July 28, 2021; Published: August 20, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Thompson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. The MATLAB files and LabVIEW diagram block are available at https://github.com/PedroLolo81/Matlab_Routines_for_Lung.git.

Funding: This study was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico in the form of grants awarded to PRMR (421067/2016-0) and PLS (443894/2018-3), and Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro in the form of grants awarded to PRMR (E-26/210.910/2016, E-26/010.001488/2019).

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Inappropriate mechanical ventilation settings in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may result in ventilation-induced lung injury (VILI). VILI is believed to involve a proinflammatory response, leading to lung structural and peripheral organ damage [1]. The use of protective low tidal volume under controlled mechanical ventilation is the only ventilator strategy known to reduce mortality in ARDS [2]. However, controlled mechanical ventilation may lead to diaphragmatic weakness [3,4], thus delaying the weaning process [3]. Partial ventilatory support can be implemented in mild-to-moderate forms of ARDS [5–7]. Since it requires less sedation and no neuromuscular blockade, it prevents muscle atrophy [8] and is associated with better cardiovascular performance [9,10], shorter time on mechanical ventilation, and shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay [10,11]. On the other hand, spontaneous breathing during assisted mechanical ventilation may aggravate lung injury, since it can increase patient-ventilator asynchrony and work of breathing, leading to so-called patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) [12–14]. In recent decades, different partial ventilatory support modes have been proposed [15]. During biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation (BIVENT), a combination of time-cycled controlled breaths at two levels of continuous positive airway pressure and spontaneous breathing is allowed at both low and high airway pressure phases [16]. In experimental ARDS, Saddy et al. reported reduced lung and diaphragm damage with lower frequency of controlled breaths during BIVENT [17]. The combination of BIVENT with pressure support ventilation (PSV), when compared with pressure controlled ventilation, has been found to reduce lung damage [18]. We hypothesized that a decrease in frequency of control breaths during BIVENT, associated with an increase in spontaneous breaths, whether pressure support (PSV)-assisted or not, would mitigate lung and diaphragm damage in ARDS. The present study evaluated respiratory variables, histology, biological markers associated with VILI, and markers of diaphragmatic injury under different frequencies of control breaths and PSV in a rat model of experimental mild ARDS.

Materials and methods

Study approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Healthy Science Center (CEUA no. 103/16), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. All animals received humane care in compliance with the “Principles of Laboratory Animal Care” formulated by the National Society for Medical Research and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals prepared by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The present study followed the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting of animal research [19]. Animals came from the Breeding Facility of Healthy Science Center of Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Conventional animals were housed at a controlled temperature (23°C) and controlled light–dark cycle (12–12 h), with free access to water and food. No acclimation was done.

Animal preparation and experimental protocol

Forty male Wistar rats (mean weight 292±20g) were anesthetized under spontaneous breathing with 1.5–2.0% isoflurane (Isoforine®; Cristália, Itapira, SP, Brazil) and subjected to intratracheal instillation of 9.6×10⁶ EU/mL Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide (Merck Millipore, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA), diluted in 200 μL of 0.9% saline solution.

After 24 h, animals were premedicated intraperitoneally (i.p.) with midazolam (1–2 mg/kg) and anesthetized with ketamine (100 mg/kg, i.p.). An intravenous (i.v.) catheter (Jelco 24G, Becton, Dickinson and Company, New Jersey, NJ, USA) was inserted into the tail vein, and anesthesia induced and maintained with midazolam (2 mg/kg/h) and ketamine (50 mg/kg/h). During spontaneous breathing, anesthetic depth was evaluated by the response to light touch with a fingertip on the rat’s whiskers (0 = awake, fully responsive to surroundings; 1 = not responsive to surroundings, rapid response to whisker stimulation; 2 = slow response; 3 = unresponsive to whisker stimulation) [20],^.pupil diameter, position of the nictitating membrane, and movement in response to tail stimulation [21,22]. Experiments were started when responses to a noise stimulus (handclap), whisker stimulation, and tail clamping were absent. The depth of the anesthesia was monitored via mean arterial pressure, heart rate and respiratory rate throughout the experiment.

Body temperature was maintained at 37.5 ± 1°C with a heating bed (EFF 421, INSIGHT®, Brazil). After local infiltration of 0.4 mL lidocaine (1%), a tracheostomy was performed and a polyethylene cannula (PE 240, Intramedic®, Clay-Adams Inc, New York, USA; internal diameter 1.8 mm, length 7.5 cm) was introduced into the trachea. A second catheter (18G; Arrow International, USA) was then placed in the right internal carotid artery for blood sampling and gas analysis (Radiometer ABL80 FLEX, Copenhagen NV, Denmark), as well as monitoring of mean arterial pressure (MAP) (Networked Multiparameter Veterinary Monitor LifeWindow 6000 V; Digicare Animal Health, Boynton Beach, FL, USA). Animals were adapted to an airway pressure transducer (UT-PDP-70; SCIREQ, Canada) and a two-sidearm pneumotachograph (internal diameter 2.7 mm, length 25.7 mm, internal volume 0.147 ml, airflow resistance 0.0057 cm H₂O·ml^-1·s^-1) [23] connected to a differential pressure transducer (UT-PDP-02, SCIREQ, Montreal, QC, Canada), for airflow (V’) measurement. A 30-cm-long water-filled catheter (PE-205; Becton, Dickinson and Company) with side holes at the tip, connected to a differential pressure transducer (UT-PL-400; SCIREQ, Canada), was used to measure the esophageal pressure. Briefly, the esophageal catheter was passed into the stomach and then slowly returned into the esophagus; its proper positioning was assessed using the “occlusion test” [24].

Animals were mechanically ventilated (SERVO-i; MAQUET, Solna, Sweden) in assisted pressure-controlled ventilation (A-PCV) with ΔP set to achieve a tidal volume (V_T) of 6 mL/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 0 cmH₂O, I:E (inspiratory: expiratory ratio) of 1:2, respiratory rate (RR) of 100 breaths per minute (bpm), and FiO₂ (inspired oxygen fraction) of 0.4 at BASELINE-ZEEP, to evaluate whether the degree of lung damage was similar between ARDS groups. Flow trigger sensitivity was adjusted at BASELINE-PEEP (INITIAL) for adequate inspiratory effort, according to esophageal pressure variation (ΔPes). No additional changes to flow trigger sensitivity were made at any point during the experiment [25]. Shortly thereafter (defined as the INITIAL time point), animals were randomly assigned to one of four groups of BIVENT:

BIVENT-100+PSV_0% (n = 8) with P_high to achieve V_T = 6 mL/kg, time at high and low pressures (T_high, and T_low, respectively) of 0.3 s, RR 100 bpm;
BIVENT-50+PSV_0% (n = 8), with P_high to achieve V_T = 6 mL/kg, T_high and T_low of 0.3 and 0.9 s, respectively, RR 50 bpm;
BIVENT-50+PSV_50% (n = 8) with P_high to achieve V_T = 6 mL/kg, pressure support ventilation of half the P_high value (PSV_50%), T_high and T_low of 0.3 and 0.9 s, respectively, RR 50 bpm;
BIVENT-50+PSV_100% (n = 8), with P_high to achieve V_T = 6 mL/kg, pressure support ventilation equal to P_high (PSV_100%), T_high and T_low of 0.3 and 0.9 s, respectively, RR 50 bpm (Fig 1A).

Download:

Fig 1.

A. Experimental design. BIVENT-100+PSV0% (n = 8) with Phigh to achieve VT = 6 mL/kg, Time at high and low pressures (T_high and T_low, respectively) = 0.3 s, RR = 100 bpm; BIVENT-50+PSV0% (n = 8), with P_high to achieve V_T = 6 mL/kg, Thigh and Tlow = 0.3 and = 0.9 s, respectively, RR = 50 bpm; BIVENT-50+PSV_50% (n = 8) with Phigh to achieve V_T = 6 mL/kg, pressure support ventilation of half value of P_high (PSV_50%), Thigh and Tlow = 0.3 and 0.9 s, respectively, RR = 50 bpm; and BIVENT-50+PSV100% (n = 8) with Phigh to achieve V_T = 6 mL/kg, pressure support ventilation equal P_high (PSV_100%), T_high and T_low = 0.3 and = 0.9 s, respectively, RR = 50 bpm. ARDS: Acute respiratory distress syndrome; BIVENT: Biphasic positive airway pressure; NV: Nonventilated; LPS: Lipopolysaccharide; P_high: High level of continuous positive airway pressure; P_low: Low level of continuous positive airway pressure. T_high: Time spent in P_high; T_low: Time spent in P_low; RR: Respiratory rate; PSV: Pressure support ventilation. B. Timeline of the experiments. i.t.: Intratracheal; V_T: Tidal volume; I:E: Inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio; PEEP: Positive end-expiratory pressure; FiO₂: Fraction of inspired oxygen.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.g001

P_high was adjusted across all groups to achieve V_T = 6 mL/kg, while PSV adjustments were 50% or 100% of the P_high level adjusted for each animal. Spontaneous breathing activity was allowed during all ventilatory strategies, including BIVENT-100+PSV_0%. Sedation and anesthesia were adjusted to keep adequacy of inspiratory efforts during mechanical ventilation. The P_low level, which reflects PEEP, was set at 5 cmH₂O, based on previous observations from our group showing that higher PEEP levels would lead to deterioration in respiratory mechanics in a similar rat model of ARDS [26]. We did not discriminate whether PSV occurred at P_low vs. P_high, since the SERVO-i ventilator enables PSV only during T_low. In all groups, FiO₂ = 0.4 was maintained for 1 hour, at which time blood gas analysis (Radiometer, Copenhagen, Denmark) and mechanical data were obtained (timepoint FINAL) (Fig 1B). At timepoint FINAL, heparin was injected (1,000 IU i.v.), and animals were euthanized by overdose of sodium thiopental (60 mg/kg i.v.; Cristália, Brazil). The trachea was clamped at P_low = 5 cmH₂O, lungs were removed en bloc for histology and molecular biology analysis, and a surgical line was placed in the left bronchus to maintain lung volume at P_low = 5 cmH₂O. The right lung was immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen for molecular biology analyses. The diaphragm was also removed at the end of the experiments. Eight of 40 rats were instilled with E. coli LPS, but not ventilated (NV); these animals were used for molecular biology analysis.

Data acquisition and respiratory system mechanics

Airflow, airway pressure (Paw), and Pes were recorded continuously throughout the experiments by a computer running custom-made software written in LabVIEW (National Instruments, USA). All signals were amplified in a three-channel signal conditioner (TAM-DHSE Plugsys Transducers Amplifiers, Module Type 705/2, Harvard Apparatus, Holliston, Massachusetts, USA) and sampled at 200 Hz with a 12-bit analog-to-digital converter (National Instruments; Austin, Texas, USA). All mechanical data were computed offline by a routine written in MATLAB (Version R2007a; The Mathworks Inc., USA) (Please see in the supplement custom-made software written in LabVIEW and routine written in MATLAB for data analysis).

V_T was calculated by digital integration of the flow signal. Coefficient of variation (CV) of V_T was determined among 600 sampled cycles by the ratio of standard deviation divided by mean values of V_T. The total respiratory rate (RR) was calculated from the Pes swings as the frequency per minute of each type of breathing cycle. Mean transpulmonary pressure (Pmean,L) and peak transpulmonary pressure (Ppeak,L) were calculated as the difference between tracheal and esophageal pressure. Inspiratory time divided by total respiratory cycle time (Ti/Ttot) was calculated. The pressure–time product per minute (PTP_min) was calculated as the integral of ΔPes over one minute. The ΔPes reflects the total variation of esophageal pressure during the inspiratory effort. All mechanical parameters were extracted from four different types of breathing cycles as follows: 1) mixed respiratory cycles (M), i.e., negative Pes swings with simultaneous ventilator inspiratory cycling; 2) spontaneous breath cycles, without PSV, at high airway pressure (P_high), i.e., negative Pes swings at P_high not followed by ventilator cycling; 3) spontaneous breath cycles, without PSV, at low airway pressure (P_low), i.e., negative Pes swings at P_low not followed by ventilator cycling; and 4) spontaneous breath at pressure support (PSV), only present in groups BIVENT-50+PSV_50% and BIVENT-50+PSV_100% during the T_low phase (Fig 2).

Download:

Fig 2. Original tracheal, esophageal and transpulmonary pressure tracings.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.g002

Histology

Diffuse alveolar damage.

The left lung was fixed in 4% formaldehyde solution and embedded in paraffin. Sections (4 μm thick) were cut longitudinally from the central zone with a microtome and stained with hematoxylin–eosin for histologic analysis. Photomicrographs at magnifications of ×25, ×100, and ×400 were obtained from eight non-overlapping fields of view per section under a light microscope (Olympus BX51; Olympus Latin America Inc., Brazil). Diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) score was quantified by an expert in lung pathology (V.L.C.) blinded to group assignment [27]. Briefly, scores of 0 to 4 were used to represent overdistension, interstitial edema, and alveolar collapse, with 0 standing for no effect and 4 for maximum severity. Additionally, the extent of each scored characteristic per field of view was determined on a scale of 0 to 4, with 0 standing for no visible evidence and 4 for complete involvement. Scores were calculated as the product of severity and extent of each feature, on a range of 0 to 16. The cumulative DAD score was the sum of these three features and thus ranged from 0 to 48 [28].

Electron microscopy.

Three slices measuring 2×2×2 mm were cut from three different segments of the right lung and from the right diaphragm and fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde and 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH = 7.4) for transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (JEOL 1010 Transmission Electron Microscope, Tokyo, Japan). Each TEM image (20 per animal) was analyzed for damage to epithelial and endothelial cells, basement membrane, and extracellular matrix at three different magnifications. Pathologic findings were graded on a 5-point semiquantitative severity-based scoring system as follows: 0 = normal lung parenchyma, 1 = changes in 1% to 25% of examined tissue, 2 = changes in 26% to 50% of examined tissue, 3 = changes in 51% to 75% of examined tissue, and 4 = changes in 76% to 100% of examined tissue [29]. For diaphragm analysis, the following aspects were assessed on TEM: 1) myofibril abnormalities, defined as disruption of myofibril bundles or disorganized myofibrillar pattern with edema of the Z-disc and 2) mitochondrial injury with abnormal, swollen mitochondria and abnormal cristae. The pathologic findings were again graded on a 5-point semiquantitative severity-based scoring system, as follows: 0 = normal diaphragm, 1 = changes in 1% to 25%, 2 = changes in 26% to 50%, 3 = changes in 51% to 75%, and 4 = changes in 76% to 100% of examined tissue. The pathologist working on light microscopy and TEM images (V.L.C.) was blinded to group assignment.

Molecular biology analysis of lung and diaphragm tissue.

Quantitative real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction was performed to measure biological markers associated with inflammation (tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-α), alveolar stretch (amphiregulin), epithelial cell damage (club cell protein 16), endothelial cell damage [vascular cell adhesion molecule (VCAM)-1], and extracellular matrix damage (decorin) in lung tissue, as well as markers of muscle proteolysis [muscle RING finger-1 (MuRF-1) and muscle atrophy F-box (MAFbx/atrogin-1)] in the right diaphragm. The primer sequences are listed in S1 Table. Central slices of right lung and right diaphragm were cut, collected in cryotubes, flash-frozen by immersion in liquid nitrogen, and stored at −80°C. Total RNA was extracted from frozen tissues using the RNeasy Plus Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), following the manufacturer’s recommendations. The RNA concentration was measured by spectrophotometry in a Nanodrop ND-2000 system. First-strand cDNA was synthesized from total RNA using a Quantitec reverse transcription kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). Relative mRNA concentrations were measured with a SYBR green detection _system using ABI 7500 real-time polymerase chain reaction (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Samples were measured in triplicate. For each sample, the expression of each gene was normalized to that of the housekeeping gene 36B4 (acidic ribosomal phosphoprotein P0) and expressed as fold change relative to NV, using the 2^-ΔΔCt method, where ΔCt = Ct (reference gene)–Ct (target gene). All analyses were performed by two authors (M.A.A., C.L.S.), who were blinded to group assignment.

Statistical analysis

The sample size was judiciously calculated to minimize the use of animals. A sample of 8 animals per group would provide the appropriate power (1-β = 0.8) to identify significant (α = 0.05) differences in alveolar collapse between BIVENT-100+PSV_0% and BIVENT50+PSV_0% [17], taking into account an effect size d = 1.72, a two-sided test, and a sample size ratio of 1 (G*Power 3.1.9.2, University of Düsseldorf, Germany). The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test with Lilliefors’ correction was used to assess normality of data, while the Levene median test was used to evaluate the homogeneity of variances. For comparisons between BIVENT-100 and BIVENT-50 groups, either Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test was used as appropriate. For comparisons within BIVENT-50 groups, one-way ANOVA with Holm-Šídák’s post-hoc test (<0.05) or the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s test were used. All tests were performed in GraphPad Prism v8.4.0 (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA). Significance was established at P < 0.05 (two-sided).

Results

There were no missing data at any time point in the study. Two animals died due to hemodynamic compromise during the pilot phase. At BASELINE ZEEP, PaO₂/FiO₂ was lower than 300 mmHg in all groups (S2 Table). MAP was higher than 70 mmHg throughout the experiments. At timepoint FINAL, PaO₂/FiO₂, pHa, PaCO₂, and HCO₃^- did not significantly differ between BIVENT-100+PSV_0% and BIVENT-50+PSV_0%, nor among the BIVENT-50+PSV_0%, BIVENT-50+PSV_50%, and BIVENT-50+PSV_100% groups (S3 Table). The amount of fluid infused did not differ between groups (S3 Table). Adjusted P_high and PSV levels are shown in S4 Table.

BIVENT-100+PSV_0% vs BIVENT-50+PSV_0% group

The CV of V_T was lower in BIVENT-100+PSV_0% than BIVENT-50+PSV_0% (Table 1). Among the mixed cycles, BIVENT-100+PSV_0% presented higher Ti/Ttot and RR compared to BIVENT-50+PSV_0%. No significant changes were observed in PTP_min and ΔPes between groups.

Download:

Table 1. Respiratory mechanical parameters at timepoint FINAL.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.t001

NV animals showed higher alveolar collapse and cumulative DAD score compared to BIVENT-100+PSV_0% and BIVENT-50+PSV_0%. The score of overdistension and interstitial edema was higher in NV than BIVENT-50+PSV_0%. BIVENT-100+PSV_0% cumulative DAD score compared to BIVENT-50+PSV_0% (Fig 3, Table 2).

Download:

Fig 3. Representative photomicrographs of lung parenchyma stained with hematoxylin–eosin.

NV (nonventilated), BIVENT-100+PSV_0% and BIVENT-50+PSV_0%: The frequency of control breaths is 100 and 50 breaths/min, respectively. BIVENT-50+PSV_50%: PSV set to half the value of P_high (PSV_50%). BIVENT-50+PSV_100%: PSV equal to the value at P_high (PSV_100%). Note the preserved microscopic architecture of the lung parenchyma in BIVENT-50+PSV_50% animals. AD: Alveolar duct. Asterisk: Interstitial edema. Arrows: Areas of alveolar collapse. Scale bar = 50 μm.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.g003

Download:

Table 2. Diffuse alveolar damage score.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.t002

Endothelial cell damage was greater in NV compared to than BIVENT-50+PSV_0% (Fig 4 and Table 3).

Download:

Fig 4. Photomicrographs of electron microscopy of the lung.

The ultrastructure of the alveolar–capillary barrier shows varying degrees of injury to epithelial/endothelial cells and the basement membrane, as well as collagen fiber deposition in the septal interstitium. NV: Nonventilated. Note that BIVENT-50+PSV_50% induced more epithelial (Ep) and endothelial cell (Ed) apoptosis, irregularity and thickness of the basement membrane (arrows), and collagen fiber deposition (*) in the alveolar-capillary barrier than BIVENT-50+PSV_0%. In contrast, less epithelial (Ep) and endothelial cell (Ed) apoptosis, greater basement membrane integrity (arrows), and less collagen fiber deposition (*) can be seen in BIVENT-50+PSV_100% compared to BIVENT-50+PSV_50%.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.g004

Download:

Table 3. Semiquantitative analysis of lung electron microscopy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.t003

BIVENT-100 + PSV_0% group showed increased amphiregulin gene expression in comparison to BIVENT-50+PSV_0% (Fig 5).

Download:

Fig 5. Real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis of biological markers for inflammation (tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-α), epithelial cell damage (club cell secretory protein [CC-16]), endothelial cell damage (vascular cell adhesion molecule [VCAM]-1), alveolar stretch (amphiregulin), and extracellular matrix damage (decorin).

Box plots represent the median and interquartile range of 8 animals. Relative gene expression was calculated as a ratio of the average gene expression levels compared with the reference gene (36B4) and expressed as fold change relative to respective NV (nonventilated). Comparisons between BIVENT-100+PSV_0% and BIVENT-50+PSV_0% groups were done by the Mann–Whitney U test (p<0.05). For comparisons within BIVENT-50 groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post-hoc test was used (p<0.05).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.g005

Myofibril abnormality score was higher in BIVENT-100+PSV_0% than NV and BIVENT-50+PSV_0%, mitochondrial injury did not differ among NV, BIVENT-100+PSV_0% and BIVENT-100+PSV_50% (Fig 6 and Table 4).

Download:

Fig 6. Electron microscopy of the diaphragm.

Photomicrographs are representative of data obtained from diaphragm sections of eight animals per group. Myofibril damage with Z-disc edema and mitochondrial injury (Mt) was greater in BIVENT-100+PSV_0% compared to BIVENT-50+PSV_0%. Diaphragmatic mitochondrial damage was more intense in BIVENT-50+PSV50% than BIVENT-50+PSV100%. Sarcomere disarrangement (double arrows) and Z-disc edema were more pronounced during BIVENT-50+PSV_50% compared to BIVENT-50+PSV_100%. NV: Nonventilated.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.g006

Download:

Table 4. Semiquantitative analysis of diaphragm electron microscopy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.t004

MAFbx gene expression was higher in BIVENT-100+PSV_0% than BIVENT-50+PSV_0% (Fig 7).

Download:

Fig 7. Real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis of biological markers for proteolysis [muscle RING finger-1 (MuRF-1) and muscle atrophy F-box (MAFbx/atrogin-1)].

Box plots represent the median and interquartile range of 8 animals. Relative gene expression was calculated as a ratio of the average gene expression levels compared with the reference gene (36B4) and expressed as fold change relative to respective NV (nonventilated). Comparisons between BIVENT-100+PSV_0% and BIVENT-50+PSV0% groups were done by the Mann–Whitney U test (p<0.05). For comparisons within BIVENT-50 groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post-hoc test was used (p<0.05).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.g007

Comparisons among the BIVENT-50 + PSV_0%, BIVENT-50 + PSV_50%, and BIVENT-50 + PSV_100% groups

Among total cycles, the CV of V_T was lower in BIVENT-50+PSV_50% than BIVENT-50+PSV_0% and BIVENT-50+PSV_100% groups. In addition, Pmean,_L, PTP_min, and ΔPes were lower in BIVENT-50+PSV_100% than BIVENT-50 + PSV50% animals (Table 1). Among P_low cycles, V_T, airflow, RR, and PTP_min were lower in BIVENT-50+PSV100% than BIVENT-50+PSV_0%. Among P_high cycles, RR, Ppeak,_L, and PTP_min were higher in BIVENT-50+PSV_50% than BIVENT-50+PSV_0%. Among mixed (M) cycles, Ti/Ttot was higher, while Pmean,_L was lower in BIVENT-50+ PSV_100% compared to BIVENT-50+PSV_50%. Among PSV cycles, ΔPes was lower in BIVENT-50+PSV_100% than BIVENT-50+PSV_50% animals. Overdistension, alveolar collapse, and cumulative DAD score were higher in BIVENT-50+PSV_50% than BIVENT-50+PSV_0%, while BIVENT-50+PSV_100% showed less interstitial edema and alveolar collapse, as well as a lower cumulative DAD score, compared to BIVENT-50+PSV_50% (Fig 3, Table 2). BIVENT-50+PSV_50% showed more damage to epithelial and endothelial cells, basement membrane, and extracellular matrix compared to BIVENT-50 + PSV_0%. The BIVENT-50 + PSV_100% group exhibited less basement membrane damage compared to BIVENT-50+PSV_50% (Fig 4 and Table 3).

TNF-α, VCAM-1, amphiregulin, and decorin gene expressions were higher in BIVENT-50+ PSV_50% than BIVENT-50+PSV_0%. On the other hand, BIVENT-50+PSV_100% showed reduced TNF-α, CC-16, and VCAM-1 gene expression compared to BIVENT-50+PSV_50% (Fig 5). The BIVENT-50+PSV_100% group exhibited higher amphiregulin expression than BIVENT-50+PSV_0% animals.

BIVENT-50+PSV_50% showed more myofibril abnormalities than BIVENT-50+PSV_0% and BIVENT-50+PSV_100% (Fig 6, Table 4). The mitochondrial injury score was higher in BIVENT-50+PSV_50% than BIVENT-50+PSV_0% and BIVENT-50+PSV_100%. MURF-1 gene expression was higher in BIVENT-50+PSV_50% than in BIVENT-50+PSV_0% and BIVENT-50+PSV_100% (Fig 7). No significant changes were observed in MAFbx expression among BIVENT-50 groups (Fig 7).

Discussion

In the rat model of mild ARDS used herein, at a low protective V_T (6 mL/kg), we found that the decrease in the frequency of controlled breaths (BIVENT-100+PSV_0% versus BIVENT-50+PSV_0%) reduced DAD score, amphiregulin expression in lung tissue and MAFbx expression in diaphragm. In BIVENT-50 groups, the increase in PSV (BIVENT-50+PSV_50% versus BIVENT-50+PSV_100%) yielded better lung mechanics and less alveolar collapse, interstitial edema, cumulative DAD score, basement membrane damage, as well as gene expressions of TNF-α, CC-16, and VCAM-1 in lung tissue, and MURF-1 expression in diaphragm. Transpulmonary peak pressure (Ppeak,L) and pressure–time product per minute (PTP_min), both at P_high, were associated with lung damage, while increased rate of spontaneous breaths at P_low was not. In short, total values of PTP_min (inspiratory effort) and Ppeak,L (transpulmonary pressure) did not contribute towards reduction of VILI; however, partitioning of these parameters between spontaneous breaths at P_low and at P_high is required during BIVENT to optimize ventilator settings.

We used a model of mild lung injury induced by intratracheal instillation of E. coli lipopolysaccharide (E. coli LPS) because it reproduces several characteristics of mild human ARDS [30]. We observed mean PaO₂/FiO₂ < 300 mmHg at BASELINE-ZEEP; nevertheless, in small animals, changes in lung function and histology (alveolar collapse, neutrophil infiltration, and edema) are more closely related to the degree of lung damage than oxygenation levels are [30]. The model used herein is a two-hit model: endotoxin (first hit) induced alveolar and interstitial edema, alveolar–capillary barrier changes, and elevated markers of inflammation within the first hour after tracheal instillation, increasing progressively until the 24-h timepoint, when mechanical ventilation strategies (second hit) were analyzed [30,31]. After the first hit, both the lung [32,33] and diaphragm [34] are more prone to injury. BIVENT is characterized by two levels (P_high and P_low) of continuous positive airway pressure with unrestricted spontaneous breathing [17,18,35]. Additionally, BIVENT can be combined with PSV, as classically done in previous studies [18,36,37]. Adding PSV is expected to achieve a reduction in work of breathing [38] and increased alveolar recruitment. By gradually increasing the pressure support according to P_high (0, 50%, and 100%) within BIVENT-50 groups, a “U-shaped” response was observed according to histological and molecular biology parameters: lung and diaphragm protection was observed in BIVENT-50+PSV_0% and BIVENT-50+PSV_100% groups, whereas BIVENT-50+PSV_50% impaired both lungs and the diaphragm.

BIVENT at different controlled breaths without PSV (BIVENT-100+PSV_0% vs BIVENT-50+PSV_0%)

BIVENT-100+PSV_0% was associated with a lower CV of V_T than BIVENT-50+PSV_0%. This can be explained by the higher number of mandatory cycles. The CV of V_T achieved at BIVENT-50+PSV_0% was 32%, which may reduce lung damage [39,40]. Accordingly, the increased rate of spontaneous breathing at P_low during BIVENT-50+PSV_0% was associated with reduced cumulative DAD score, mainly due to less alveolar collapse, less damage to epithelial/endothelial cells and basement membrane, and lower amphiregulin gene expression, which denotes less alveolar stretch [41]. Oxygenation did not differ between groups. This is consistent with the fact that oxygenation was associated with a balance between alveolar collapse and overdistension. Moreover, during assisted breathing, not only lung morphology but also regional perfusion distribution may play a relevant role in oxygenation [36].

By reducing the number of controlled cycles from BIVENT-100+PSV_0% to BIVENT-50+PSV_0%, spontaneous breathing cycles may occur, mainly at P_low within a protective V_T range. Both the appropriate degree of variability of respiratory pattern and better maintenance of respiratory muscle tone may improve recruitment and maintenance of airway patency through the modulation of different airway pressures and inspiratory times, ultimately maximizing lung recruitment and stabilization [40,42,43], without causing diaphragm injury. In this line, we may further infer that the maintenance of respiratory muscle tone during BIVENT-50+PSV_0%, but not in BIVENT-100+PSV_0%, may have contributed to low diaphragm score and decreased expression of proteolysis markers. Accordingly, spontaneous breathing, compared to controlled mechanical ventilation, did not result in a significant decline in diaphragm protein synthesis [44], which corroborates our hypothesis.

BIVENT-50 at different PSV (BIVENT-50+PSV_0%, BIVENT-50+PSV_50%, and BIVENT-50+PSV_100%)

In BIVENT-50+PSV_50%, compared to BIVENT-50+PSV_0%, V_T did not change; however, Ppeak,L was higher at P_high, reflecting vigorous efforts, which may have contributed to increase the level of PTP_min and ΔPes. The PTP_min was calculated as the integral of ΔPes over one minute and may better reflect inspiratory effort than esophageal pressure swing per se. Total respiratory rate did not differ among groups. Total ΔPes (variation of esophageal pressure during the inspiratory effort) was higher in BIVENT-50+PSV_50% compared to BIVENT-50+PSV_100%, mainly due to the increase during PSV (assisted and spontaneous breaths). In BIVENT-50+PSV_50%, for the same airway pressure set on the ventilator, the higher the ΔPes at P_high (7.3 ± 3.6 cmH₂O), the higher the Ppeak,L (22.1 ± 3.0 cmH₂O). On the other hand, when no pressure support was given (BIVENT-50+PSV_0%), the lower the ΔPes at P_high (4.4 ± 0.3 cmH₂O), the lower the Ppeak,L (15.3 ± 1.2 cmH₂O). We hypothesized that the increased expression of genes implicated in lung inflammation, extracellular matrix damage, and alveolar stretch in BIVENT-50+PSV_50% animals may be attributed to increased Ppeak,L and PTP_min at P_high. Moreover, since BIVENT-50+PSV50% animals exhibited greater atelectasis and overdistension, the increase in Ppeak,L might also reflect a reduction in lung compliance. Increased inspiratory effort may lead an imbalanced diaphragm length-tension relationship [45] and thus culminate in diaphragmatic injury. In this line, Ppeak,L is an important driver of lung damage also when PSV (without BIVENT) is gradually reduced [38,46].

On the other hand, during BIVENT-50+PSV_0%, animals showed inspiratory effort at spontaneous breathing mainly in the P_low phase, which may protect the lungs against overdistension and triggering of biological markers. We may infer that the presence of spontaneous breathing activity at P_low may mitigate VILI.

Animals tended to breathe spontaneously more at P_low than at P_high when the level of pressure support increased from 50 to 100%. In this line, the SERVO-i ventilator allows PSV breaths only at P_low and not at P_high. Therefore, in BIVENT-50+PSV_50%, 8 ± 1 (mean ± SD) spontaneous breaths occurred at P_high, whereas in BIVENT-50+PSV_100%, 9 ± 2 spontaneous breaths occurred at P_low. In this context, if the level of pressure support is low, spontaneous breaths (assisted or not) are favored at higher lung volumes. On the other hand, if the level of pressure support is high (BIVENT-50+PSV_100%), spontaneous breaths tend to be favored at lower lung volumes, resulting in less lung stretch and diaphragm injury, which is consistent with the literature [18,38]. BIVENT-50+PSV_100% seems to be the most promising ventilation mode.

Possible clinical implications of study findings

The findings of the present study expand the knowledge based on assisted mechanical ventilation strategies by showing that, during BIVENT, both the frequency of controlled breaths and the levels of pressure support (0%, 50% and 100%) affect lung and diaphragm damage differently. In addition, lung injury was worse if the ventilator was set to promote spontaneous efforts at P_high level, such as observed at BIVENT-50+PSV_50%. When BIVENT is set with different mandatory (controlled) and spontaneous breaths (PSV-assisted or not), PTP_min (as a surrogate of inspiratory effort) and Ppeak,L need to be measured during spontaneous breaths at P_high and P_low. In this line, animals ventilated at BIVENT-50+PSV_0% and BIVENT-50+PSV_100% tended to breathe at lower pressures (P_low), whereas during BIVENT-50+PSV_50%, they adapted at higher pressures (P_high), resulting in VILI and diaphragmatic damage. This reinforces the concept of the utility of esophageal pressure measurement at the bedside to optimize assisted breathing when targeted to minimize lung and diaphragm injury.

Limitations

Some limitations of this study must be noted. First, an experimental model of mild pulmonary ARDS induced by intratracheal E. coli LPS instillation was used, which does not reproduce all features of human ARDS, does not apply to other degrees of ARDS severity, and is not representative of extrapulmonary ARDS. Second, the extent of alveolar permeability (measured by the protein content in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid) was not evaluated. Third, we chose not to ventilate healthy animals in order to avoid an overly large number of groups, and then increased the number of animals per group to maintain the power of the study. Finally, the ventilation period was limited to 1 hour, since longer periods of ventilation would have required infusion of additional fluids or even vasopressors to maintain MAP, which might have confounded the readouts. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that similar alterations would be maintained for longer periods. Nevertheless, 1 hour of mechanical ventilation was enough to observe molecular changes in key biological markers related to VILI and diaphragmatic proteolysis.

Conclusions

In the ARDS model used herein, during BIVENT, the level of PSV and the phase of the respiratory cycle in which the inspiratory effort occurs affected lung and diaphragm damage. Lung injury was not influenced by the total values of inspiratory effort or transpulmonary pressure. Partitioning of these parameters in spontaneous breaths at P_low and P_high is required to minimize VILI.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Forward and reverse oligonucleotide sequences of target gene primers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Mean arterial pressure, amount of fluids infused, and arterial blood gases at timepoint BASELINE-ZEEP.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Mean arterial pressure, amount of fluids infused, and arterial blood gases at timepoint FINAL.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.s003

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Respiratory parameters adjusted at the ventilator at BASELINE-ZEEP, INITIAL and FINAL.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.s004

(DOCX)

S1 File. Custom-made software written in LabVIEW and routine written in MATLAB for data analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256021.s005

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors express our gratitude to Andre Benedito da Silva, B.Sc., Laboratory of Pulmonary Investigation, Carlos Chagas Filho Biophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for animal care; Arlete Fernandes, B.Sc., Laboratory of Pulmonary Investigation, Carlos Chagas Filho Biophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for her help with microscopy; Maíra Rezende Lima, M.Sc., Laboratory of Pulmonary Investigation, Carlos Chagas Filho Biophysics Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for her assistance in molecular biology analysis; Moira Elizabeth Schottler, B.A., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and Filippe Vasconcellos, B.A., São Paulo, Brazil, for their assistance in editing the manuscript; Ronir Raggio Luiz, Ph.D., Institute of Public Health Studies, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for his help with statistics; and Maquet, Germany, for technical support.

References

1. Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM (2013) Ventilator-induced lung injury. The New England journal of medicine 369: 2126–2136. pmid:24283226
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Zhang Z, Spieth PM, Chiumello D, Goyal H, Torres A, et al. (2019) Declining Mortality in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Analysis of the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network Trials. Critical care medicine 47: 315–323. pmid:30779718
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Watson AC, Hughes PD, Louise Harris M, Hart N, Ware RJ, et al. (2001) Measurement of twitch transdiaphragmatic, esophageal, and endotracheal tube pressure with bilateral anterolateral magnetic phrenic nerve stimulation in patients in the intensive care unit. Critical care medicine 29: 1325–1331. pmid:11445679
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Demoule A, Jung B, Prodanovic H, Molinari N, Chanques G, et al. (2013) Diaphragm dysfunction on admission to the intensive care unit. Prevalence, risk factors, and prognostic impact-a prospective study. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 188: 213–219. pmid:23641946
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Esteban A, Alia I, Tobin MJ, Gil A, Gordo F, et al. (1999) Effect of spontaneous breathing trial duration on outcome of attempts to discontinue mechanical ventilation. Spanish Lung Failure Collaborative Group. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 159: 512–518. pmid:9927366
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. McMullen SM, Meade M, Rose L, Burns K, Mehta S, et al. (2012) Partial ventilatory support modalities in acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome-a systematic review. PloS one 7: e40190. pmid:22916094
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. van Haren F, Pham T, Brochard L, Bellani G, Laffey J, et al. (2019) Spontaneous Breathing in Early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Insights From the Large Observational Study to UNderstand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory FailurE Study. Critical care medicine 47: 229–238. pmid:30379668
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Levine S, Nguyen T, Taylor N, Friscia ME, Budak MT, et al. (2008) Rapid disuse atrophy of diaphragm fibers in mechanically ventilated humans. The New England journal of medicine 358: 1327–1335. pmid:18367735
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Kaplan LJ, Bailey H, Formosa V (2001) Airway pressure release ventilation increases cardiac performance in patients with acute lung injury/adult respiratory distress syndrome. Critical care 5: 221–226. pmid:11511336
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Putensen C, Zech S, Wrigge H, Zinserling J, Stuber F, et al. (2001) Long-term effects of spontaneous breathing during ventilatory support in patients with acute lung injury. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 164: 43–49. pmid:11435237
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Putensen C, Mutz NJ, Putensen-Himmer G, Zinserling J (1999) Spontaneous breathing during ventilatory support improves ventilation-perfusion distributions in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 159: 1241–1248. pmid:10194172
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, Lellouche F, Brochard L (2006) Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. Intensive care medicine 32: 1515–1522. pmid:16896854
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Brochard L, Slutsky A, Pesenti A (2017) Mechanical Ventilation to Minimize Progression of Lung Injury in Acute Respiratory Failure. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 195: 438–442. pmid:27626833
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Yoshida T, Grieco DL, Brochard L, Fujino Y (2020) Patient self-inflicted lung injury and positive end-expiratory pressure for safe spontaneous breathing. Current opinion in critical care 26: 59–65. pmid:31815775
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Esteban A, Frutos-Vivar F, Muriel A, Ferguson ND, Penuelas O, et al. (2013) Evolution of mortality over time in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 188: 220–230. pmid:23631814
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Putensen C, Wrigge H (2004) Clinical review: biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation. Critical care 8: 492–497. pmid:15566621
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Saddy F, Moraes L, Santos CL, Oliveira GP, Cruz FF, et al. (2013) Biphasic positive airway pressure minimizes biological impact on lung tissue in mild acute lung injury independent of etiology. Critical care 17: R228. pmid:24103805
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Saddy F, Oliveira GP, Garcia CS, Nardelli LM, Rzezinski AF, et al. (2010) Assisted ventilation modes reduce the expression of lung inflammatory and fibrogenic mediators in a model of mild acute lung injury. Intensive care medicine 36: 1417–1426. pmid:20333356
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Percie du Sert N, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, et al. (2020) Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS biology 18: e3000411. pmid:32663221
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Archer DP, Roth SH (2007) Low concentrations of pentobarbital enhance excitability of rat hippocampal neurons. Anesthesia and analgesia 105: 993–997, table of contents. pmid:17898378
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Heil LB, Santos CL, Santos RS, Samary CS, Cavalcanti VC, et al. (2016) The Effects of Short-Term Propofol and Dexmedetomidine on Lung Mechanics, Histology, and Biological Markers in Experimental Obesity. Anesthesia and analgesia 122: 1015–1023. pmid:26720616
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Araujo MN, Santos CL, Samary CS, Heil LBB, Cavalcanti VCM, et al. (2017) Sevoflurane, Compared With Isoflurane, Minimizes Lung Damage in Pulmonary but Not in Extrapulmonary Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Rats. Anesthesia and analgesia 125: 491–498. pmid:28277329
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Mortola JP, Noworaj A (1983) Two-sidearm tracheal cannula for respiratory airflow measurements in small animals. Journal of applied physiology: respiratory, environmental and exercise physiology 55: 250–253. pmid:6885578
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Baydur A, Behrakis PK, Zin WA, Jaeger M, Milic-Emili J (1982) A simple method for assessing the validity of the esophageal balloon technique. The American review of respiratory disease 126: 788–791. pmid:7149443
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. da Cruz DG, de Magalhaes RF, Padilha GA, da Silva MC, Braga CL, et al. (2021) Impact of positive biphasic pressure during low and high inspiratory efforts in Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced pneumonia. PloS one 16: e0246891. pmid:33577592
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Samary CS, Santos RS, Santos CL, Felix NS, Bentes M, et al. (2015) Biological Impact of Transpulmonary Driving Pressure in Experimental Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Anesthesiology 123: 423–433. pmid:26039328
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Uhlig C, Silva PL, Ornellas D, Santos RS, Miranda PJ, et al. (2014) The effects of salbutamol on epithelial ion channels depend on the etiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome but not the route of administration. Respiratory research 15: 56.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Pinto EF, Santos RS, Antunes MA, Maia LA, Padilha GA, et al. (2020) Static and Dynamic Transpulmonary Driving Pressures Affect Lung and Diaphragm Injury during Pressure-controlled versus Pressure-support Ventilation in Experimental Mild Lung Injury in Rats. Anesthesiology 132: 307–320. pmid:31939846
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Moraes L, Santos CL, Santos RS, Cruz FF, Saddy F, et al. (2014) Effects of sigh during pressure control and pressure support ventilation in pulmonary and extrapulmonary mild acute lung injury. Critical care 18: 474. pmid:25113136
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Matute-Bello G, Downey G, Moore BB, Groshong SD, Matthay MA, et al. (2011) An official American Thoracic Society workshop report: features and measurements of experimental acute lung injury in animals. American journal of respiratory cell and molecular biology 44: 725–738. pmid:21531958
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Menezes SL, Bozza PT, Neto HC, Laranjeira AP, Negri EM, et al. (2005) Pulmonary and extrapulmonary acute lung injury: inflammatory and ultrastructural analyses. Journal of applied physiology 98: 1777–1783. pmid:15649870
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Felix NS, Samary CS, Cruz FF, Rocha NN, Fernandes MVS, et al. (2019) Gradually Increasing Tidal Volume May Mitigate Experimental Lung Injury in Rats. Anesthesiology 130: 767–777. pmid:30870161
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Rocco PRM, Marini JJ (2020) What have we learned from animal models of ventilator-induced lung injury? Intensive care medicine 46: 2377–2380. pmid:32500178
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Shimada K, Crother TR, Karlin J, Dagvadorj J, Chiba N, et al. (2012) Oxidized mitochondrial DNA activates the NLRP3 inflammasome during apoptosis. Immunity 36: 401–414. pmid:22342844
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Mireles-Cabodevila E, Kacmarek RM (2016) Should Airway Pressure Release Ventilation Be the Primary Mode in ARDS? Respiratory care 61: 761–773. pmid:27235312
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Carvalho AR, Spieth PM, Guldner A, Cuevas M, Carvalho NC, et al. (2011) Distribution of regional lung aeration and perfusion during conventional and noisy pressure support ventilation in experimental lung injury. Journal of applied physiology 110: 1083–1092. pmid:21270348
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Gama de Abreu M, Cuevas M, Spieth PM, Carvalho AR, Hietschold V, et al. (2010) Regional lung aeration and ventilation during pressure support and biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation in experimental lung injury. Critical care 14: R34. pmid:20233399
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Henzler D, Schmidt A, Xu Z, Ismaiel N, Zhang H, et al. (2019) Increased effort during partial ventilatory support is not associated with lung damage in experimental acute lung injury. Intensive care medicine experimental 7: 60. pmid:31691042
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Samary CS, Moraes L, Santos CL, Huhle R, Santos RS, et al. (2016) Lung Functional and Biologic Responses to Variable Ventilation in Experimental Pulmonary and Extrapulmonary Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Critical care medicine 44: e553–562. pmid:26963321
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Kiss T, Silva PL, Huhle R, Moraes L, Santos RS, et al. (2016) Comparison of different degrees of variability in tidal volume to prevent deterioration of respiratory system elastance in experimental acute lung inflammation. British journal of anaesthesia 116: 708–715. pmid:27106975
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Dolinay T, Kaminski N, Felgendreher M, Kim HP, Reynolds P, et al. (2006) Gene expression profiling of target genes in ventilator-induced lung injury. Physiological genomics 26: 68–75. pmid:16569776
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Suki B, Barabasi AL, Hantos Z, Petak F, Stanley HE (1994) Avalanches and power-law behaviour in lung inflation. Nature 368: 615–618. pmid:8145846
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Spieth PM, Carvalho AR, Pelosi P, Hoehn C, Meissner C, et al. (2009) Variable tidal volumes improve lung protective ventilation strategies in experimental lung injury. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 179: 684–693. pmid:19151194
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Hudson MB, Smuder AJ, Nelson WB, Wiggs MP, Shimkus KL, et al. (2015) Partial Support Ventilation and Mitochondrial-Targeted Antioxidants Protect against Ventilator-Induced Decreases in Diaphragm Muscle Protein Synthesis. PloS one 10: e0137693. pmid:26361212
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Goligher EC, Dres M, Fan E, Rubenfeld GD, Scales DC, et al. (2018) Mechanical Ventilation-induced Diaphragm Atrophy Strongly Impacts Clinical Outcomes. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 197: 204–213. pmid:28930478
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Engelberts D, Malhotra A, Butler JP, Topulos GP, Loring SH, et al. (2012) Relative effects of negative versus positive pressure ventilation depend on applied conditions. Intensive care medicine 38: 879–885. pmid:22349427
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM (2013) Ventilator-induced lung injury. The New England journal of medicine 369: 2126–2136. pmid:24283226
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Zhang Z, Spieth PM, Chiumello D, Goyal H, Torres A, et al. (2019) Declining Mortality in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Analysis of the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network Trials. Critical care medicine 47: 315–323. pmid:30779718
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Watson AC, Hughes PD, Louise Harris M, Hart N, Ware RJ, et al. (2001) Measurement of twitch transdiaphragmatic, esophageal, and endotracheal tube pressure with bilateral anterolateral magnetic phrenic nerve stimulation in patients in the intensive care unit. Critical care medicine 29: 1325–1331. pmid:11445679
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Demoule A, Jung B, Prodanovic H, Molinari N, Chanques G, et al. (2013) Diaphragm dysfunction on admission to the intensive care unit. Prevalence, risk factors, and prognostic impact-a prospective study. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 188: 213–219. pmid:23641946
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Esteban A, Alia I, Tobin MJ, Gil A, Gordo F, et al. (1999) Effect of spontaneous breathing trial duration on outcome of attempts to discontinue mechanical ventilation. Spanish Lung Failure Collaborative Group. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 159: 512–518. pmid:9927366
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. McMullen SM, Meade M, Rose L, Burns K, Mehta S, et al. (2012) Partial ventilatory support modalities in acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome-a systematic review. PloS one 7: e40190. pmid:22916094
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. van Haren F, Pham T, Brochard L, Bellani G, Laffey J, et al. (2019) Spontaneous Breathing in Early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Insights From the Large Observational Study to UNderstand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory FailurE Study. Critical care medicine 47: 229–238. pmid:30379668
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Levine S, Nguyen T, Taylor N, Friscia ME, Budak MT, et al. (2008) Rapid disuse atrophy of diaphragm fibers in mechanically ventilated humans. The New England journal of medicine 358: 1327–1335. pmid:18367735
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Kaplan LJ, Bailey H, Formosa V (2001) Airway pressure release ventilation increases cardiac performance in patients with acute lung injury/adult respiratory distress syndrome. Critical care 5: 221–226. pmid:11511336
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Putensen C, Zech S, Wrigge H, Zinserling J, Stuber F, et al. (2001) Long-term effects of spontaneous breathing during ventilatory support in patients with acute lung injury. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 164: 43–49. pmid:11435237
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Putensen C, Mutz NJ, Putensen-Himmer G, Zinserling J (1999) Spontaneous breathing during ventilatory support improves ventilation-perfusion distributions in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 159: 1241–1248. pmid:10194172
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, Lellouche F, Brochard L (2006) Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. Intensive care medicine 32: 1515–1522. pmid:16896854
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Brochard L, Slutsky A, Pesenti A (2017) Mechanical Ventilation to Minimize Progression of Lung Injury in Acute Respiratory Failure. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 195: 438–442. pmid:27626833
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Yoshida T, Grieco DL, Brochard L, Fujino Y (2020) Patient self-inflicted lung injury and positive end-expiratory pressure for safe spontaneous breathing. Current opinion in critical care 26: 59–65. pmid:31815775
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Esteban A, Frutos-Vivar F, Muriel A, Ferguson ND, Penuelas O, et al. (2013) Evolution of mortality over time in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 188: 220–230. pmid:23631814
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Putensen C, Wrigge H (2004) Clinical review: biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation. Critical care 8: 492–497. pmid:15566621
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Saddy F, Moraes L, Santos CL, Oliveira GP, Cruz FF, et al. (2013) Biphasic positive airway pressure minimizes biological impact on lung tissue in mild acute lung injury independent of etiology. Critical care 17: R228. pmid:24103805
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Saddy F, Oliveira GP, Garcia CS, Nardelli LM, Rzezinski AF, et al. (2010) Assisted ventilation modes reduce the expression of lung inflammatory and fibrogenic mediators in a model of mild acute lung injury. Intensive care medicine 36: 1417–1426. pmid:20333356
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Percie du Sert N, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, et al. (2020) Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS biology 18: e3000411. pmid:32663221
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Archer DP, Roth SH (2007) Low concentrations of pentobarbital enhance excitability of rat hippocampal neurons. Anesthesia and analgesia 105: 993–997, table of contents. pmid:17898378
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Heil LB, Santos CL, Santos RS, Samary CS, Cavalcanti VC, et al. (2016) The Effects of Short-Term Propofol and Dexmedetomidine on Lung Mechanics, Histology, and Biological Markers in Experimental Obesity. Anesthesia and analgesia 122: 1015–1023. pmid:26720616
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] PubMed/NCBI

[84] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Araujo MN, Santos CL, Samary CS, Heil LBB, Cavalcanti VCM, et al. (2017) Sevoflurane, Compared With Isoflurane, Minimizes Lung Damage in Pulmonary but Not in Extrapulmonary Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Rats. Anesthesia and analgesia 125: 491–498. pmid:28277329
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Mortola JP, Noworaj A (1983) Two-sidearm tracheal cannula for respiratory airflow measurements in small animals. Journal of applied physiology: respiratory, environmental and exercise physiology 55: 250–253. pmid:6885578
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Baydur A, Behrakis PK, Zin WA, Jaeger M, Milic-Emili J (1982) A simple method for assessing the validity of the esophageal balloon technique. The American review of respiratory disease 126: 788–791. pmid:7149443
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] PubMed/NCBI

[96] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. da Cruz DG, de Magalhaes RF, Padilha GA, da Silva MC, Braga CL, et al. (2021) Impact of positive biphasic pressure during low and high inspiratory efforts in Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced pneumonia. PloS one 16: e0246891. pmid:33577592
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] PubMed/NCBI

[100] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Samary CS, Santos RS, Santos CL, Felix NS, Bentes M, et al. (2015) Biological Impact of Transpulmonary Driving Pressure in Experimental Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Anesthesiology 123: 423–433. pmid:26039328
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] PubMed/NCBI

[104] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Uhlig C, Silva PL, Ornellas D, Santos RS, Miranda PJ, et al. (2014) The effects of salbutamol on epithelial ion channels depend on the etiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome but not the route of administration. Respiratory research 15: 56.
View Article
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Pinto EF, Santos RS, Antunes MA, Maia LA, Padilha GA, et al. (2020) Static and Dynamic Transpulmonary Driving Pressures Affect Lung and Diaphragm Injury during Pressure-controlled versus Pressure-support Ventilation in Experimental Mild Lung Injury in Rats. Anesthesiology 132: 307–320. pmid:31939846
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[109] View Article

[110] PubMed/NCBI

[111] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Moraes L, Santos CL, Santos RS, Cruz FF, Saddy F, et al. (2014) Effects of sigh during pressure control and pressure support ventilation in pulmonary and extrapulmonary mild acute lung injury. Critical care 18: 474. pmid:25113136
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] PubMed/NCBI

[115] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Matute-Bello G, Downey G, Moore BB, Groshong SD, Matthay MA, et al. (2011) An official American Thoracic Society workshop report: features and measurements of experimental acute lung injury in animals. American journal of respiratory cell and molecular biology 44: 725–738. pmid:21531958
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Menezes SL, Bozza PT, Neto HC, Laranjeira AP, Negri EM, et al. (2005) Pulmonary and extrapulmonary acute lung injury: inflammatory and ultrastructural analyses. Journal of applied physiology 98: 1777–1783. pmid:15649870
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Felix NS, Samary CS, Cruz FF, Rocha NN, Fernandes MVS, et al. (2019) Gradually Increasing Tidal Volume May Mitigate Experimental Lung Injury in Rats. Anesthesiology 130: 767–777. pmid:30870161
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Rocco PRM, Marini JJ (2020) What have we learned from animal models of ventilator-induced lung injury? Intensive care medicine 46: 2377–2380. pmid:32500178
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Shimada K, Crother TR, Karlin J, Dagvadorj J, Chiba N, et al. (2012) Oxidized mitochondrial DNA activates the NLRP3 inflammasome during apoptosis. Immunity 36: 401–414. pmid:22342844
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Mireles-Cabodevila E, Kacmarek RM (2016) Should Airway Pressure Release Ventilation Be the Primary Mode in ARDS? Respiratory care 61: 761–773. pmid:27235312
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Carvalho AR, Spieth PM, Guldner A, Cuevas M, Carvalho NC, et al. (2011) Distribution of regional lung aeration and perfusion during conventional and noisy pressure support ventilation in experimental lung injury. Journal of applied physiology 110: 1083–1092. pmid:21270348
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Gama de Abreu M, Cuevas M, Spieth PM, Carvalho AR, Hietschold V, et al. (2010) Regional lung aeration and ventilation during pressure support and biphasic positive airway pressure ventilation in experimental lung injury. Critical care 14: R34. pmid:20233399
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Henzler D, Schmidt A, Xu Z, Ismaiel N, Zhang H, et al. (2019) Increased effort during partial ventilatory support is not associated with lung damage in experimental acute lung injury. Intensive care medicine experimental 7: 60. pmid:31691042
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Samary CS, Moraes L, Santos CL, Huhle R, Santos RS, et al. (2016) Lung Functional and Biologic Responses to Variable Ventilation in Experimental Pulmonary and Extrapulmonary Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Critical care medicine 44: e553–562. pmid:26963321
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Kiss T, Silva PL, Huhle R, Moraes L, Santos RS, et al. (2016) Comparison of different degrees of variability in tidal volume to prevent deterioration of respiratory system elastance in experimental acute lung inflammation. British journal of anaesthesia 116: 708–715. pmid:27106975
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Dolinay T, Kaminski N, Felgendreher M, Kim HP, Reynolds P, et al. (2006) Gene expression profiling of target genes in ventilator-induced lung injury. Physiological genomics 26: 68–75. pmid:16569776
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Suki B, Barabasi AL, Hantos Z, Petak F, Stanley HE (1994) Avalanches and power-law behaviour in lung inflation. Nature 368: 615–618. pmid:8145846
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] PubMed/NCBI

[167] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Spieth PM, Carvalho AR, Pelosi P, Hoehn C, Meissner C, et al. (2009) Variable tidal volumes improve lung protective ventilation strategies in experimental lung injury. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 179: 684–693. pmid:19151194
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[169] View Article

[170] PubMed/NCBI

[171] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Hudson MB, Smuder AJ, Nelson WB, Wiggs MP, Shimkus KL, et al. (2015) Partial Support Ventilation and Mitochondrial-Targeted Antioxidants Protect against Ventilator-Induced Decreases in Diaphragm Muscle Protein Synthesis. PloS one 10: e0137693. pmid:26361212
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[173] View Article

[174] PubMed/NCBI

[175] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Goligher EC, Dres M, Fan E, Rubenfeld GD, Scales DC, et al. (2018) Mechanical Ventilation-induced Diaphragm Atrophy Strongly Impacts Clinical Outcomes. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 197: 204–213. pmid:28930478
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[177] View Article

[178] PubMed/NCBI

[179] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Engelberts D, Malhotra A, Butler JP, Topulos GP, Loring SH, et al. (2012) Relative effects of negative versus positive pressure ventilation depend on applied conditions. Intensive care medicine 38: 879–885. pmid:22349427
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[181] View Article

[182] PubMed/NCBI

[183] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study approval

Animal preparation and experimental protocol

Data acquisition and respiratory system mechanics

Histology

Diffuse alveolar damage.

Electron microscopy.

Molecular biology analysis of lung and diaphragm tissue.

Statistical analysis

Results

BIVENT-100+PSV0% vs BIVENT-50+PSV0% group

Comparisons among the BIVENT-50 + PSV0%, BIVENT-50 + PSV50%, and BIVENT-50 + PSV100% groups

Discussion

BIVENT at different controlled breaths without PSV (BIVENT-100+PSV0% vs BIVENT-50+PSV0%)

BIVENT-50 at different PSV (BIVENT-50+PSV0%, BIVENT-50+PSV50%, and BIVENT-50+PSV100%)

Possible clinical implications of study findings

Limitations

Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Table. Forward and reverse oligonucleotide sequences of target gene primers.

S2 Table. Mean arterial pressure, amount of fluids infused, and arterial blood gases at timepoint BASELINE-ZEEP.

S3 Table. Mean arterial pressure, amount of fluids infused, and arterial blood gases at timepoint FINAL.

S4 Table. Respiratory parameters adjusted at the ventilator at BASELINE-ZEEP, INITIAL and FINAL.

S1 File. Custom-made software written in LabVIEW and routine written in MATLAB for data analysis.

Acknowledgments

References

BIVENT-100+PSV_0% vs BIVENT-50+PSV_0% group

Comparisons among the BIVENT-50 + PSV_0%, BIVENT-50 + PSV_50%, and BIVENT-50 + PSV_100% groups

BIVENT at different controlled breaths without PSV (BIVENT-100+PSV_0% vs BIVENT-50+PSV_0%)

BIVENT-50 at different PSV (BIVENT-50+PSV_0%, BIVENT-50+PSV_50%, and BIVENT-50+PSV_100%)