4.0 Article Proceedings Paper

Surfactant Dysfunction in ARDS and Bronchiolitis is Repaired with Cyclodextrins

Journal

MILITARY MEDICINE
Volume 183, Issue -, Pages 207-215

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/milmed/usx204

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR)
  2. Alberta Innovates Health Solutions (AIHS-CRIO)
  3. Calgary Laboratory Services (CLS)
  4. Alberta Lung Association (ALA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is caused by many factors including inhalation of toxicants, acute barotrauma, acid aspiration, and burns. Surfactant function is impaired in ARDS and acute airway injury resulting in high surface tension with alveolar and small airway collapse, edema, hypoxemia, and death. In this study, we explore the mechanisms whereby surfactant becomes dysfunctional in ARDS and bronchiolitis and its repair with a cyclodextrin drug that sequesters cholesterol. Methods: We used in vitro model systems, a mouse model of ARDS, and samples from patients with acute bronchiolitis. Surface tension was measured by captive bubble surfactometry. Results: Patient samples showed severe surfactant inhibition even in the absence of elevated cholesterol levels. Surfactant was also impaired in ARDS mice where the cholesterol to phospholipid ratio (W/W%) was increased. Methyl-beta-cyclodextrin (M beta CD) restored surfactant function to normal in both human and animal samples. Model studies showed that the inhibition of surfactant was due to both elevated cholesterol and an interaction between cholesterol and oxidized phospholipids. M beta CD was also shown to have anti-inflammatory effects. Conclusions: Inhaled cyclodextrins have potential for the treatment of ARDS. They could be delivered in a portable device carried in combat and used following exposure to toxic gases and fumes or shock secondary to hemorrhage and burns.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available