Loading…

The Effects of Prone Position Ventilation on Experimental Mild Acute Lung Injury Induced by Intraperitoneal Lipopolysaccharide Injection in Rats

Introduction The benefits of prone position ventilation are well demonstrated in the severe forms of acute respiratory distress syndrome, but not in the milder forms. We investigated the effects of prone position on arterial blood gases, lung inflammation, and histology in an experimental mild acute...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Lung 2016-04, Vol.194 (2), p.193-199
Main Authors: Bianchi, Aydra Mendes Almeida, Reboredo, Maycon Moura, Lucinda, Leda Marília Fonseca, Reis, Fernando Fonseca, Silva, Manfrinni Vinícius Alves, Rabelo, Maria Aparecida Esteves, Holanda, Marcelo Alcantara, Oliveira, Júlio César Abreu, Lorente, José Ángel, Pinheiro, Bruno do Valle
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction The benefits of prone position ventilation are well demonstrated in the severe forms of acute respiratory distress syndrome, but not in the milder forms. We investigated the effects of prone position on arterial blood gases, lung inflammation, and histology in an experimental mild acute lung injury (ALI) model. Methods ALI was induced in Wistar rats by intraperitoneal Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide (LPS, 5 mg/kg). After 24 h, the animals with PaO 2 /FIO 2 between 200 and 300 mmHg were randomized into 2 groups: prone position ( n  = 6) and supine position ( n  = 6). Both groups were compared with a control group ( n  = 5) that was ventilated in the supine position. All of the groups were ventilated for 1 h with volume-controlled ventilation mode (tidal volume = 6 ml/kg, respiratory rate = 80 breaths/min, positive end-expiratory pressure = 5 cmH 2 O, inspired oxygen fraction = 1) Results Significantly higher lung injury scores were observed in the LPS-supine group compared to the LPS-prone and control groups (0.32 ± 0.03; 0.17 ± 0.03 and 0.13 ± 0.04, respectively) ( p  
ISSN:0341-2040
1432-1750
DOI:10.1007/s00408-016-9853-8