4.6 Article

Short-Term Administration of a High Oxygen Concentration Is Not Injurious in an Ex-Vivo Rabbit Model of Ventilator-induced Lung Injury

期刊

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
卷 108, 期 2, 页码 556-564

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31818f10f7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation and administration of a high oxygen concentration are simultaneously used in the management of respiratory failure. We conducted this study to evaluate the effect of a high inspired oxygen concentration on ventilator-induced lung injury. METHODS: Forty sets of isolated/perfused rabbit lungs were randomized for 60 min of pressure-control ventilation at a plateau inspiratory pressure of 25 or 15 cm H2O and positive end-expiratory pressure of 3 cm H2O while receiving 100% or 21% O-2. The temperature, pH, and partial pressure of CO2 in the perfusate were maintained the same in all groups (n = 10 for each group). The outcome measures used to assess lung injury included: the change in weight gain and ultrafiltration coefficient, the frequency of vascular failure, the histological lesions and the concentration of tumor necrosis factor-a and malondialdehyde in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. RESULTS: The two groups ventilated at the higher inspiratory pressure/tidal volume experienced greater weight gain and increases in the ultrafiltration coefficient, more frequently suffered vascular failure, and presented higher composite scores of histological damage than the two groups ventilated at the lower inspiratory of pressure/tidal volume. Hyperoxia was not found to further increase any of the monitored markers of lung injury. No difference was noticed among the four experimental groups in the alveolar lavage fluid levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha or malondialdehyde. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that short-term administration of a high oxygen concentration is not a major determinant of ventilator-induced lung injury in this experimental model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据