Impact of positive biphasic pressure during low and high inspiratory efforts in Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: During pneumonia, normal alveolar areas coexist adjacently with consolidated areas, and high inspiratory efforts may predispose to lung damage. To date, no study has evaluated different degrees of effort during Biphasic positive airway pressure (BIVENT) on lung and diaphragm damage in experimental pneumonia, though largely used in clinical setting. We aimed to evaluate lung damage, genes associated with ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and diaphragmatic injury, and blood bacteria in pressure-support ventilation (PSV), BIVENT with low and high inspiratory efforts in experimental pneumonia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-eight male Wistar rats (mean ± SD weight, 333±78g) were submitted Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced pneumonia. After 24-h, animals were ventilated for 1h in: 1) PSV; 2) BIVENT with low (BIVENTLow-Effort); and 3) BIVENT with high inspiratory effort (BIVENTHigh-Effort). BIVENT was set at Phigh to achieve VT = 6 ml/kg and Plow at 5 cmH2O (n = 7/group). High- and low-effort conditions were obtained through anaesthetic infusion modulation based on neuromuscular drive (P0.1). Lung mechanics, histological damage score, blood bacteria, and expression of genes related to VILI in lung tissue, and inflammation in diaphragm tissue. RESULTS: Transpulmonary peak pressure and histological damage score were higher in BIVENTHigh-Effort compared to BIVENTLow-Effort and PSV [16.1 ± 1.9cmH2O vs 12.8 ± 1.5cmH2O and 12.5 ± 1.6cmH2O, p = 0.015, and p = 0.010; median (interquartile range) 11 (9-13) vs 7 (6-9) and 7 (6-9), p = 0.021, and p = 0.029, respectively]. BIVENTHigh-Effort increased interleukin-6 expression compared to BIVENTLow-Effort (p = 0.035) as well as expressions of cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant-1, amphiregulin, and type III procollagen compared to PSV (p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.004, respectively). Tumour necrosis factor-α expression in diaphragm tissue and blood bacteria were higher in BIVENTHigh-Effort than BIVENTLow-Effort (p = 0.002, p = 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSION: BIVENT requires careful control of inspiratory effort to avoid lung and diaphragm damage, as well as blood bacteria. P0.1 might be considered a helpful parameter to optimize inspiratory effort.

Time-Controlled Adaptive Ventilation Versus Volume-Controlled Ventilation in Experimental Pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that a time-controlled adaptive ventilation strategy would open and stabilize alveoli by controlling inspiratory and expiratory duration. Time-controlled adaptive ventilation was compared with volume-controlled ventilation at the same levels of mean airway pressure and positive end-release pressure (time-controlled adaptive ventilation)/positive end-expiratory pressure (volume-controlled ventilation) in a Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced pneumonia model. DESIGN: Animal study. SETTING: Laboratory investigation. SUBJECTS: Twenty-one Wistar rats. INTERVENTIONS: Twenty-four hours after pneumonia induction, Wistar rats (n = 7) were ventilated with time-controlled adaptive ventilation (tidal volume = 8 mL/kg, airway pressure release ventilation for a Thigh = 0.75-0.85 s, release pressure (Plow) set at 0 cm H2O, and generating a positive end-release pressure = 1.6 cm H2O applied for Tlow = 0.11-0.14 s). The expiratory flow was terminated at 75% of the expiratory flow peak. An additional 14 animals were ventilated using volume-controlled ventilation, maintaining similar time-controlled adaptive ventilation levels of positive end-release pressure (positive end-expiratory pressure=1.6 cm H2O) and mean airway pressure = 10 cm H2O. Additional nonventilated animals (n = 7) were used for analysis of molecular biology markers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After 1 hour of mechanical ventilation, the heterogeneity score, the expression of pro-inflammatory biomarkers interleukin-6 and cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant-1 in lung tissue were significantly lower in the time-controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure groups (p = 0.008, p = 0.011, and p = 0.011, respectively). Epithelial cell integrity, measured by E-cadherin tissue expression, was higher in time-controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure (p = 0.004). Time-controlled adaptive ventilation animals had bacteremia counts lower than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure animals, while time-controlled adaptive ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation with similar positive end-release pressure animals had similar colony-forming unit counts. In addition, lung edema and cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant-1 gene expression were more reduced in time-controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar positive end-release pressure groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the model of pneumonia used herein, at the same tidal volume and mean airway pressure, time-controlled adaptive ventilation, compared with volume-controlled ventilation, was associated with less lung damage and bacteremia and reduced gene expression of mediators associated with inflammation.

Variable ventilation improves pulmonary function and reduces lung damage without increasing bacterial translocation in a rat model of experimental pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Variable ventilation has been shown to improve pulmonary function and reduce lung damage in different models of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Nevertheless, variable ventilation has not been tested during pneumonia. Theoretically, periodic increases in tidal volume (VT) and airway pressures might worsen the impairment of alveolar barrier function usually seen in pneumonia and could increase bacterial translocation into the bloodstream. We investigated the impact of variable ventilation on lung function and histologic damage, as well as markers of lung inflammation, epithelial and endothelial cell damage, and alveolar stress, and bacterial translocation in experimental pneumonia. METHODS: Thirty-two Wistar rats were randomly assigned to receive intratracheal of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) or saline (SAL) (n = 16/group). After 24-h, animals were anesthetized and ventilated for 2 h with either conventional volume-controlled (VCV) or variable volume-controlled ventilation (VV), with mean VT = 6 mL/kg, PEEP = 5cmH2O, and FiO2 = 0.4. During VV, tidal volume varied randomly with a coefficient of variation of 30% and a Gaussian distribution. Additional animals assigned to receive either PA or SAL (n = 8/group) were not ventilated (NV) to serve as controls. RESULTS: In both SAL and PA, VV improved oxygenation and lung elastance compared to VCV. In SAL, VV decreased interleukin (IL)-6 expression compared to VCV (median [interquartile range]: 1.3 [0.3-2.3] vs. 5.3 [3.6-7.0]; p = 0.02) and increased surfactant protein-D expression compared to NV (2.5 [1.9-3.5] vs. 1.2 [0.8-1.2]; p = 0.0005). In PA, compared to VCV, VV reduced perivascular edema (2.5 [2.0-3.75] vs. 6.0 [4.5-6.0]; p < 0.0001), septum neutrophils (2.0 [1.0-4.0] vs. 5.0 [3.3-6.0]; p = 0.0008), necrotizing vasculitis (3.0 [2.0-5.5] vs. 6.0 [6.0-6.0]; p = 0.0003), and ultrastructural lung damage scores (16 [14-17] vs. 24 [14-27], p < 0.0001). Blood colony-forming-unit (CFU) counts were comparable (7 [0-28] vs. 6 [0-26], p = 0.77). Compared to NV, VCV, but not VV, increased expression amphiregulin, IL-6, and cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant (CINC)-1 (2.1 [1.6-2.5] vs. 0.9 [0.7-1.2], p = 0.025; 12.3 [7.9-22.0] vs. 0.8 [0.6-1.9], p = 0.006; and 4.4 [2.9-5.6] vs. 0.9 [0.8-1.4], p = 0.003, respectively). Angiopoietin-2 expression was lower in VV compared to NV animals (0.5 [0.3-0.8] vs. 1.3 [1.0-1.5], p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In this rat model of pneumonia, VV improved pulmonary function and reduced lung damage as compared to VCV, without increasing bacterial translocation.