English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Pressure-support ventilation may worsen lung damage due to increased dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure. The authors hypothesized that, at the same tidal volume (VT) and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure, pressure-support and pressure-controlled ventilation would yield comparable lung damage in mild lung injury. Methods Male Wistar rats received endotoxin intratracheally and, after 24 h, were ventilated in pressure-support mode. Rats were then randomized to 2 h of pressure-controlled ventilation with VT, dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure, dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure, and inspiratory time similar to those of pressure-support ventilation. The primary outcome was the difference in dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure between pressure-support and pressure-controlled ventilation at similar VT; secondary outcomes were lung and diaphragm damage. Results At VT = 6 ml/kg, dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure was higher in pressure-support than pressure-controlled ventilation (12.0 ± 2.2 vs. 8.0 ± 1.8 cm H2O), whereas static transpulmonary driving pressure did not differ (6.7 ± 0.6 vs. 7.0 ± 0.3 cm H2O). Diffuse alveolar damage score and gene expression of markers associated with lung inflammation (interleukin-6), alveolar-stretch (amphiregulin), epithelial cell damage (club cell protein 16), and fibrogenesis (metalloproteinase-9 and type III procollagen), as well as diaphragm inflammation (tumor necrosis factor-α) and proteolysis (muscle RING-finger-1) were comparable between groups. At similar dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure, as well as dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure and inspiratory time, pressure-controlled ventilation increased VT, static transpulmonary driving pressure, diffuse alveolar damage score, and gene expression of markers of lung inflammation, alveolar stretch, fibrogenesis, diaphragm inflammation, and proteolysis compared to pressure-support ventilation. Conclusions In the mild lung injury model use herein, at the same VT, pressure-support compared to pressure-controlled ventilation did not affect biologic markers. However, pressure-support ventilation was associated with a major difference between static and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure; when the same dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure and inspiratory time were used for pressure-controlled ventilation, greater lung and diaphragm injury occurred compared to pressure-support ventilation.

anesthesiology

Static and Dynamic Transpulmonary Driving Pressures Affect Lung and Diaphragm Injury during Pressure-controlled <i>versus</i> Pressure-support Ventilation in Experimental Mild Lung Injury in Rats

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