↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Different Tidal Volume Levels at Low Mechanical Power on Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury in Rats

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Impact of Different Tidal Volume Levels at Low Mechanical Power on Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury in Rats
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00318
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lillian Moraes, Pedro L. Silva, Alessandra Thompson, Cintia L. Santos, Raquel S. Santos, Marcos V. S. Fernandes, Marcelo M. Morales, Vanessa Martins, Vera L. Capelozzi, Marcelo G. de Abreu, Paolo Pelosi, Patricia R. M. Rocco

Abstract

Tidal volume (VT) has been considered the main determinant of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Recently, experimental studies have suggested that mechanical power transferred from the ventilator to the lungs is the promoter of VILI. We hypothesized that, as long as mechanical power is kept below a safe threshold, high VT should not be injurious. The present study aimed to investigate the impact of different VT levels and respiratory rates (RR) on lung function, diffuse alveolar damage (DAD), alveolar ultrastructure, and expression of genes related to inflammation [interleukin (IL)-6], alveolar stretch (amphiregulin), epithelial [club cell secretory protein (CC)16] and endothelial [intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM)-1] cell injury, and extracellular matrix damage [syndecan-1, decorin, and metalloproteinase (MMP)-9] in experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) under low-power mechanical ventilation. Twenty-eight Wistar rats received Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide intratracheally. After 24 h, 21 animals were randomly assigned to ventilation (2 h) with low mechanical power at three different VT levels (n = 7/group): (1) VT = 6 mL/kg and RR adjusted to normocapnia; (2) VT = 13 mL/kg; and 3) VT = 22 mL/kg. In the second and third groups, RR was adjusted to yield low mechanical power comparable to that of the first group. Mechanical power was calculated as [(Δ[Formula: see text]/Est,L)/2]× RR (ΔP,L = transpulmonary driving pressure, Est,L = static lung elastance). Seven rats were not mechanically ventilated (NV) and were used for molecular biology analysis. Mechanical power was comparable among groups, while VT gradually increased. ΔP,L and mechanical energy were higher in VT = 22 mL/kg than VT = 6 mL/kg and VT = 13 mL/kg (p < 0.001 for both). Accordingly, DAD score increased in VT = 22 mL/kg compared to VT = 6 mL/kg and VT = 13 mL/kg [23(18.5-24.75) vs. 16(12-17.75) and 16(13.25-18), p < 0.05, respectively]. VT = 22 mL/kg was associated with higher IL-6, amphiregulin, CC16, MMP-9, and syndecan-1 mRNA expression and lower decorin expression than VT = 6 mL/kg. Multiple linear regression analyses indicated that VT was able to predict changes in IL-6 and CC16, whereas ΔP,L predicted pHa, oxygenation, amphiregulin, and syndecan-1 expression. In the model of ARDS used herein, even at low mechanical power, high VT resulted in VILI. VT control seems to be more important than RR control to mitigate VILI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Other 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 23 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 45%
Engineering 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 22 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 April 2023.
All research outputs
#14,434,918
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#5,124
of 14,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,794
of 330,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#169
of 436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 330,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 436 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.