Effect of partial liquid ventilation on lung function in oleic acid-induced lung injury model of piglets.
- Author:
Ji-zhuo ZHANG
1
;
Ling-ke LI
;
Yan-bo ZHANG
;
Gang LI
;
Yu-lin XU
;
Yao-bin ZHU
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH: Animals; Liquid Ventilation; Lung Injury; chemically induced; therapy; Oleic Acid; Swine
- From: Chinese Medical Journal 2013;126(23):4536-4539
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUNDPediatric patients are susceptible to lung injury that does not respond to traditional therapies. Partial liquid ventilation (PLV) has been developed as an alternative ventilatory strategy for treating severe lung injury. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of PLV on lung function in immature piglets.
METHODSAcute lung injury was induced in 12 Chinese immature piglets by oleic acid (OA). The animals were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 6 each group): (1) conventional mechanical ventilation (MV) group and (2) PLV with FC-77 (10 ml/kg) group. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), mean pulmonary arterial pressure (MPAP), central venous pressure (CVP), left atrial pressure (LAP), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), cardiac output (CO), mean pressure of airway (Paw), dynamic lung compliance (Cydn), and arterial blood gases were measured during the observation period.
RESULTSNo piglet died in either group with severe lung injury. After four hours of ventilation, pH in the MV group gradually decreased to lower than 7.20, while in the PLV group, pH also gradually decreased but remained higher than 7.20 (P < 0.05). Partial pressure of oxygen in artery (PaO2) decreased in both groups, but with a significant difference between the PLV group and MV group (P < 0.05). Partial pressure of carbon dioxide in artery (PaCO2) increased in both groups, but with a significant difference between the PLV group and MV group (P < 0.05). Paw increased in both groups, but was not significantly different (P > 0.05). Cydn decreased in both groups, but without a significant difference (P > 0.05). At four hours, heart rate (HR) and MAP in both groups decreased. MPAP in both groups increased, and there was a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05). CVP was stable in both groups. At four hours, PVR and LAP were increased in both groups. CO was decreased in both groups (P < 0.05). SVR was stable during the observation time.
CONCLUSIONPLV did not improve outcome in changes of lung function.
