Effects of pressure support ventilation on ventilator-induced lung injury in mild acute respiratory distress syndrome depend on level of positive end-expiratory pressure: A randomised animal study.

BACKGROUND: Harmful effects of spontaneous breathing have been shown in experimental severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, in the clinical setting, spontaneous respiration has been indicated only in mild ARDS. To date, no study has compared the effects of spontaneous assisted breathing with those of fully controlled mechanical ventilation at different levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on lung injury in ARDS. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of assisted pressure support ventilation (PSV) with pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) on lung function, histology and biological markers at two different PEEP levels in mild ARDS in rats. DESIGN: Randomised controlled experimental study. SETTING: Basic science laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-five Wistar rats (weight ±â€ŠSD, 310 ±â€Š19) g received Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide (LPS) intratracheally. After 24 h, the animals were anaesthetised and randomly allocated to either PCV (n=14) or PSV (n=14) groups. Each group was further assigned to PEEP = 2 cmH2O or PEEP = 5 cmH2O. Tidal volume was kept constant (≈6 ml kg). Additional nonventilated animals (n=7) were used as a control for postmortem analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ventilatory and mechanical parameters, arterial blood gases, diffuse alveolar damage score, epithelial integrity measured by E-cadherin tissue expression, and biological markers associated with inflammation (IL-6 and cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant, CINC-1) and type II epithelial cell damage (surfactant protein-B) were evaluated. RESULTS: In both PCV and PSV, peak transpulmonary pressure was lower, whereas E-cadherin tissue expression, which is related to epithelial integrity, was higher at PEEP = 5 cmH2O than at PEEP = 2 cmH2O. In PSV, PEEP = 5 cmH2O compared with PEEP = 2 cmH2O was associated with significantly reduced diffuse alveolar damage score [median (interquartile range), 11 (8.5 to 13.5) vs. 23 (19 to 26), P = 0.005] and expressions of IL-6 and CINC-1 (P = 0.02 for both), whereas surfactant protein-B mRNA expression increased (P = 0.03). These changes suggested less type II epithelial cell damage at a PEEP of 5 cmH2O. Peak transpulmonary pressure correlated positively with IL-6 [Spearman's rho (ρ) = 0.62, P = 0.0007] and CINC-1 expressions (ρ = 0.50, P = 0.01) and negatively with E-cadherin expression (ρ = -0.67, P = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: During PSV, PEEP of 5 cmH2O, but not a PEEP of 2 cmH2O, reduced lung damage and inflammatory markers while maintaining epithelial cell integrity.

Comparison between effects of pressure support and pressure-controlled ventilation on lung and diaphragmatic damage in experimental emphysema.

BACKGROUND: In patients with emphysema, invasive mechanical ventilation settings should be adjusted to minimize hyperinflation while reducing respiratory effort and providing adequate gas exchange. We evaluated the impact of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and pressure support ventilation (PSV) on pulmonary and diaphragmatic damage, as well as cardiac function, in experimental emphysema. METHODS: Emphysema was induced by intratracheal instillation of porcine pancreatic elastase in Wistar rats, once weekly for 4 weeks. Control animals received saline under the same protocol. Eight weeks after first instillation, control and emphysema rats were randomly assigned to PCV (n = 6/each) or PSV (n = 6/each) under protective tidal volume (6 ml/kg) for 4 h. Non-ventilated control and emphysema animals (n = 6/group) were used to characterize the model and for molecular biology analysis. Cardiorespiratory function, lung histology, diaphragm ultrastructure alterations, extracellular matrix organization, diaphragmatic proteolysis, and biological markers associated with pulmonary inflammation, alveolar stretch, and epithelial and endothelial cell damage were assessed. RESULTS: Emphysema animals exhibited cardiorespiratory changes that resemble human emphysema, such as increased areas of lung hyperinflation, pulmonary amphiregulin expression, and diaphragmatic injury. In emphysema animals, PSV compared to PCV yielded: no changes in gas exchange; decreased mean transpulmonary pressure (Pmean,L), ratio between inspiratory and total time (Ti/Ttot), lung hyperinflation, and amphiregulin expression in lung; increased ratio of pulmonary artery acceleration time to pulmonary artery ejection time, suggesting reduced right ventricular afterload; and increased ultrastructural damage to the diaphragm. Amphiregulin correlated with Pmean,L (r = 0.99, p < 0.0001) and hyperinflation (r = 0.70, p = 0.043), whereas Ti/Ttot correlated with hyperinflation (r = 0.81, p = 0.002) and Pmean,L (r = 0.60, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In the model of elastase-induced emphysema used herein, PSV reduced lung damage and improved cardiac function when compared to PCV, but worsened diaphragmatic injury.