↓ Skip to main content

Variability in Tidal Volume Affects Lung and Cardiovascular Function Differentially in a Rat Model of Experimental Emphysema

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Variability in Tidal Volume Affects Lung and Cardiovascular Function Differentially in a Rat Model of Experimental Emphysema
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.01071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caio G. R. S. Wierzchon, Gisele Padilha, Nazareth N. Rocha, Robert Huhle, Mariana S. Coelho, Cintia L. Santos, Raquel S. Santos, Cynthia S. Samary, Fernanda R. G. Silvino, Paolo Pelosi, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Patricia R. M. Rocco, Pedro L. Silva

Abstract

In experimental elastase-induced emphysema, mechanical ventilation with variable tidal volumes (VT) set to 30% coefficient of variation (CV) may result in more homogenous ventilation distribution, but might also impair right heart function. We hypothesized that a different CV setting could improve both lung and cardiovascular function. Therefore, we investigated the effects of different levels of VT variability on cardiorespiratory function, lung histology, and gene expression of biomarkers associated with inflammation, fibrogenesis, epithelial cell damage, and mechanical cell stress in this emphysema model. Wistar rats (n = 35) received repeated intratracheal instillation of porcine pancreatic elastase to induce emphysema. Seven animals were not ventilated and served as controls (NV). Twenty-eight animals were anesthetized and assigned to mechanical ventilation with a VT CV of 0% (BASELINE). After data collection, animals (n = 7/group) were randomly allocated to VT CVs of 0% (VV0); 15% (VV15); 22.5% (VV22.5); or 30% (VV30). In all groups, mean VT was 6 mL/kg and positive end-expiratory pressure was 3 cmH2O. Respiratory system mechanics and cardiac function (by echocardiography) were assessed continuously for 2 h (END). Lung histology and molecular biology were measured post-mortem. VV22.5 and VV30 decreased respiratory system elastance, while VV15 had no effect. VV0, VV15, and VV22.5, but not VV30, increased pulmonary acceleration time to pulmonary ejection time ratio. VV22.5 decreased the central moment of the mean linear intercept (D2 of Lm) while increasing the homogeneity index (1/β) compared to NV (77 ± 8 μm vs. 152 ± 45 μm; 0.85 ± 0.06 vs. 0.66 ± 0.13, p < 0.05 for both). Compared to NV, VV30 was associated with higher interleukin-6 expression. Cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant-1 expression was higher in all groups, except VV22.5, compared to NV. IL-1β expression was lower in VV22.5 and VV30 compared to VV0. IL-10 expression was higher in VV22.5 than NV. Club cell protein 16 expression was higher in VV22.5 than VV0. SP-D expression was higher in VV30 than NV, while SP-C was higher in VV30 and VV22.5 than VV0. In conclusion, VV22.5 improved respiratory system elastance and homogeneity of airspace enlargement, mitigated inflammation and epithelial cell damage, while avoiding impairment of right cardiac function in experimental elastase-induced emphysema.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 31%
Researcher 3 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Professor 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Arts and Humanities 1 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 8%
Computer Science 1 8%
Other 3 23%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 December 2017.
All research outputs
#17,923,510
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#7,239
of 13,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,175
of 439,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#157
of 295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 295 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.