Introduction: Experimental work provides insight into potential lung protective strategies. The objective of this study was to evaluate markers of ventilator-induced lung injury after two different ventilation approaches: (1) a " conventional" lung-protective strategy (volume control (VC) with low tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and paralysis), (2) a physiological approach with spontaneous breathing, permitting synchrony, variability and a liberated airway. For this, we used non-invasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NIV-NAVA), with the hypothesis that liberation of upper airways and the ventilator's integration with lung protective reflexes would be equally lung protective.Methods: In this controlled and randomized in vivo laboratory study, 25 adult White New Zealand rabbits were studied, including five non-ventilated control animals. The twenty animals with aspiration-induced lung injury were randomized to ventilation with either VC (6 mL/kg, PEEP 5 cm H2O, and paralysis) or NIV-NAVA for six hours (PEEP = zero because of leaks). Markers of lung function, lung injury, vital signs and ventilator parameters were assessed.Results: At the end of six hours of ventilation (n = 20), there were no significant differences between VC and NIV-NAVA for vital signs, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lung wet-to-dry ratio and broncho-alveolar Interleukin 8 (Il-8). Plasma IL-8 was higher in VC (P <0.05). Lung injury score was lower for NIV-NAVA (P = 0.03). Dynamic lung compliance recovered after six hours in NIV-NAVA but not in VC (P <0.05). During VC, peak pressures increased from 9.2 ± 2.4 cm H2O (hour 1) to 12.3 ± 12.3 cm H2O (hour 6) (P <0.05). During NIV-NAVA, the tracheal end-expiratory pressure was similar to the end-expiratory pressure during VC. Two animals regurgitated during NIV-NAVA, without clinical consequences, and survived the protocol.Conclusions: In experimental acute lung injury, NIV-NAVA is as lung-protective as VC 6 ml/kg with PEEP.

Lung protection during non-invasive synchronized assist versus volume control in rabbits / L. Mirabella, G. Grasselli, J.J. Haitsma, H. Zhang, A.S. Slutsky, C. Sinderby, J. Beck. - In: CRITICAL CARE. - ISSN 1364-8535. - 18:1(2014), pp. R22.1-R22.13.

Lung protection during non-invasive synchronized assist versus volume control in rabbits

G. Grasselli;
2014

Abstract

Introduction: Experimental work provides insight into potential lung protective strategies. The objective of this study was to evaluate markers of ventilator-induced lung injury after two different ventilation approaches: (1) a " conventional" lung-protective strategy (volume control (VC) with low tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and paralysis), (2) a physiological approach with spontaneous breathing, permitting synchrony, variability and a liberated airway. For this, we used non-invasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NIV-NAVA), with the hypothesis that liberation of upper airways and the ventilator's integration with lung protective reflexes would be equally lung protective.Methods: In this controlled and randomized in vivo laboratory study, 25 adult White New Zealand rabbits were studied, including five non-ventilated control animals. The twenty animals with aspiration-induced lung injury were randomized to ventilation with either VC (6 mL/kg, PEEP 5 cm H2O, and paralysis) or NIV-NAVA for six hours (PEEP = zero because of leaks). Markers of lung function, lung injury, vital signs and ventilator parameters were assessed.Results: At the end of six hours of ventilation (n = 20), there were no significant differences between VC and NIV-NAVA for vital signs, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lung wet-to-dry ratio and broncho-alveolar Interleukin 8 (Il-8). Plasma IL-8 was higher in VC (P <0.05). Lung injury score was lower for NIV-NAVA (P = 0.03). Dynamic lung compliance recovered after six hours in NIV-NAVA but not in VC (P <0.05). During VC, peak pressures increased from 9.2 ± 2.4 cm H2O (hour 1) to 12.3 ± 12.3 cm H2O (hour 6) (P <0.05). During NIV-NAVA, the tracheal end-expiratory pressure was similar to the end-expiratory pressure during VC. Two animals regurgitated during NIV-NAVA, without clinical consequences, and survived the protocol.Conclusions: In experimental acute lung injury, NIV-NAVA is as lung-protective as VC 6 ml/kg with PEEP.
Acute Lung Injury; Animals; Disease Models, Animal; Lung; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Rabbits; Random Allocation; Respiration; Tidal Volume; Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury; Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine; Medicine (all)
Settore MED/41 - Anestesiologia
2014
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Grasselli_Crit Care 2014.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 932.03 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
932.03 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/553801
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 14
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact