Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysis
Abstract Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common disease in intensive care medicine. Despite intensive research, mortality rates are high, not even in COVID-19 ARDS. Thereby, pigs offer some advantages to study the characteristics of ARDS. Many different ARDS models exist....
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Intensive Care Medicine Experimental |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-022-00466-3 |
| _version_ | 1798002979935092736 |
|---|---|
| author | René Rissel Miriam Renz Katja Mohnke Julian Riedel Katharina Ritter Alexander Ziebart Robert Ruemmler Erik K. Hartmann Jens Kamuf |
| author_facet | René Rissel Miriam Renz Katja Mohnke Julian Riedel Katharina Ritter Alexander Ziebart Robert Ruemmler Erik K. Hartmann Jens Kamuf |
| author_sort | René Rissel |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common disease in intensive care medicine. Despite intensive research, mortality rates are high, not even in COVID-19 ARDS. Thereby, pigs offer some advantages to study the characteristics of ARDS. Many different ARDS models exist. Most of the articles published focused on histopathological and microscopic lung alterations to identify the most suitable animal ARDS model. “Macroscopic” observations and descriptions are often missing. Therefore, we performed a post-hoc comparison of two common ARDS models for pigs: lipopolysaccharide (LPS) vs. a double-hit model (bronchoalveolar lavage + oleic acid infusion). We investigated hemodynamic, spirometric and laboratory changes as another main clinical part of ARDS. Results The groups were compared by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a post-hoc Student–Newman–Keuls test. A p value lower than 0.05 was accepted as significant. All animals (n = 8 double-hit ARDS; n = 8 LPS ARDS) survived the observation period of 8 h. ARDS induction with reduced oxygen indices was successful performed in both models (76 ± 35/225 ± 54/212 ± 79 vs. 367 ± 64; T0/T4/T8 vs. BLH for double-hit; 238 ± 57/144 ± 59 vs. 509 ± 41; T4/T8 vs. BLH for LPS; p < 0.05). ARDS induced with LPS leads to more hemodynamic (mean arterial pulmonary pressure 35 ± 3/30 ± 3 vs. 28 ± 4/23 ± 4; T4/T8 LPS vs. double-hit; p < 0.05; doses of norepinephrine 1.18 ± 1.05 vs. 0.11 ± 0.16; LPS vs. double-hit for T8; p < 0.05) and inflammatory (pulmonary IL-6 expression: 2.41e−04 ± 1.08e−04 vs. 1.45e−05 ± 7.26e−06; LPS vs. double-hit; p < 0.05) alterations. ARDS induced by double-hit requires a more invasive ventilator strategy to maintain a sufficient oxygenation (PEEP at T4: 8 ± 3 vs. 6 ± 2; double-hit vs. LPS; p < 0.05). Conclusions Both animal ARDS models are feasible and are similar to human presentation of ARDS. If your respiratory research focus on hemodynamic/inflammation variables, the LPS-induced ARDS is a feasible model. Studying different ventilator strategies, the double-hit ARDS model offers a suitable approach. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T12:00:58Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7f38dda4ddf5438886b2a526444608a4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2197-425X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T12:00:58Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | SpringerOpen |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Intensive Care Medicine Experimental |
| spelling | doaj.art-7f38dda4ddf5438886b2a526444608a42022-12-22T04:24:52ZengSpringerOpenIntensive Care Medicine Experimental2197-425X2022-09-0110111310.1186/s40635-022-00466-3Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysisRené Rissel0Miriam Renz1Katja Mohnke2Julian Riedel3Katharina Ritter4Alexander Ziebart5Robert Ruemmler6Erik K. Hartmann7Jens Kamuf8Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-UniversityDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-UniversityDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-UniversityDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-UniversityDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-UniversityDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-UniversityDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-UniversityDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-UniversityDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-UniversityAbstract Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common disease in intensive care medicine. Despite intensive research, mortality rates are high, not even in COVID-19 ARDS. Thereby, pigs offer some advantages to study the characteristics of ARDS. Many different ARDS models exist. Most of the articles published focused on histopathological and microscopic lung alterations to identify the most suitable animal ARDS model. “Macroscopic” observations and descriptions are often missing. Therefore, we performed a post-hoc comparison of two common ARDS models for pigs: lipopolysaccharide (LPS) vs. a double-hit model (bronchoalveolar lavage + oleic acid infusion). We investigated hemodynamic, spirometric and laboratory changes as another main clinical part of ARDS. Results The groups were compared by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a post-hoc Student–Newman–Keuls test. A p value lower than 0.05 was accepted as significant. All animals (n = 8 double-hit ARDS; n = 8 LPS ARDS) survived the observation period of 8 h. ARDS induction with reduced oxygen indices was successful performed in both models (76 ± 35/225 ± 54/212 ± 79 vs. 367 ± 64; T0/T4/T8 vs. BLH for double-hit; 238 ± 57/144 ± 59 vs. 509 ± 41; T4/T8 vs. BLH for LPS; p < 0.05). ARDS induced with LPS leads to more hemodynamic (mean arterial pulmonary pressure 35 ± 3/30 ± 3 vs. 28 ± 4/23 ± 4; T4/T8 LPS vs. double-hit; p < 0.05; doses of norepinephrine 1.18 ± 1.05 vs. 0.11 ± 0.16; LPS vs. double-hit for T8; p < 0.05) and inflammatory (pulmonary IL-6 expression: 2.41e−04 ± 1.08e−04 vs. 1.45e−05 ± 7.26e−06; LPS vs. double-hit; p < 0.05) alterations. ARDS induced by double-hit requires a more invasive ventilator strategy to maintain a sufficient oxygenation (PEEP at T4: 8 ± 3 vs. 6 ± 2; double-hit vs. LPS; p < 0.05). Conclusions Both animal ARDS models are feasible and are similar to human presentation of ARDS. If your respiratory research focus on hemodynamic/inflammation variables, the LPS-induced ARDS is a feasible model. Studying different ventilator strategies, the double-hit ARDS model offers a suitable approach.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-022-00466-3ARDSAnimal modelAcute lung injuryPigs |
| spellingShingle | René Rissel Miriam Renz Katja Mohnke Julian Riedel Katharina Ritter Alexander Ziebart Robert Ruemmler Erik K. Hartmann Jens Kamuf Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysis Intensive Care Medicine Experimental ARDS Animal model Acute lung injury Pigs |
| title | Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysis |
| title_full | Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysis |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysis |
| title_short | Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysis |
| title_sort | comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models a post hoc analysis |
| topic | ARDS Animal model Acute lung injury Pigs |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-022-00466-3 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT renerissel comparisonoftwoporcineacutelunginjurymodelsaposthocanalysis AT miriamrenz comparisonoftwoporcineacutelunginjurymodelsaposthocanalysis AT katjamohnke comparisonoftwoporcineacutelunginjurymodelsaposthocanalysis AT julianriedel comparisonoftwoporcineacutelunginjurymodelsaposthocanalysis AT katharinaritter comparisonoftwoporcineacutelunginjurymodelsaposthocanalysis AT alexanderziebart comparisonoftwoporcineacutelunginjurymodelsaposthocanalysis AT robertruemmler comparisonoftwoporcineacutelunginjurymodelsaposthocanalysis AT erikkhartmann comparisonoftwoporcineacutelunginjurymodelsaposthocanalysis AT jenskamuf comparisonoftwoporcineacutelunginjurymodelsaposthocanalysis |