Continuous external negative pressure improves oxygenation and respiratory mechanics in Experimental Lung Injury in Pigs - A pilot proof-of-concept trial

Martin Scharffenberg, Jakob Wittenstein, Moritz Herzog, Sebastian Tauer, Luigi Vivona, Raphael Theilen, Thomas Bluth, Thomas Kiss, Thea Koch, Giuseppe Fiorentino, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Robert Huhle, Martin Scharffenberg, Jakob Wittenstein, Moritz Herzog, Sebastian Tauer, Luigi Vivona, Raphael Theilen, Thomas Bluth, Thomas Kiss, Thea Koch, Giuseppe Fiorentino, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Robert Huhle

Abstract

Background: Continuous external negative pressure (CENP) during positive pressure ventilation can recruit dependent lung regions. We hypothesised that CENP applied regionally to the thorax or the abdomen only, increases the caudal end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure depending on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in lung-injured pigs. Eight pigs were anesthetised and mechanically ventilated in the supine position. Pressure sensors were placed in the left pleural space, and a lung injury was induced by saline lung lavages. A CENP shell was placed at the abdomen and thorax (randomised order), and animals were ventilated with PEEP 15, 7 and zero cmH2O (15 min each). On each PEEP level, CENP of - 40, - 30, - 20, - 10 and 0 cmH2O was applied (3 min each). Respiratory and haemodynamic variables were recorded. Electrical impedance tomography allowed assessment of centre of ventilation.

Results: Compared to positive pressure ventilation alone, the caudal transpulmonary pressure was significantly increased by CENP of ≤ 20 cmH2O at all PEEP levels. CENP of - 20 cmH2O reduced the mean airway pressure at zero PEEP (P = 0.025). The driving pressure decreased at CENP of ≤ 10 at PEEP of 0 and 7 cmH2O (P < 0.001 each) but increased at CENP of - 30 cmH2O during the highest PEEP (P = 0.001). CENP of - 30 cmH2O reduced the mechanical power during zero PEEP (P < 0.001). Both elastance (P < 0.001) and resistance (P < 0.001) were decreased at CENP ≤ 30 at PEEP of 0 and 7 cmH2O. Oxygenation increased at CENP of ≤ 20 at PEEP of 0 and 7 cmH2O (P < 0.001 each). Applying external negative pressure significantly shifted the centre of aeration towards dorsal lung regions irrespectively of the PEEP level. Cardiac output decreased significantly at CENP -20 cmH2O at all PEEP levels (P < 0.001). Effects on caudal transpulmonary pressure, elastance and cardiac output were more pronounced when CENP was applied to the abdomen compared with the thorax.

Conclusions: In this lung injury model in pigs, CENP increased the end-expiratory caudal transpulmonary pressure. This lead to a shift of lung aeration towards dependent zones as well as improved respiratory mechanics and oxygenation, especially when CENP was applied to the abdomen as compared to the thorax. CENP values ≤ 20 cmH2O impaired the haemodynamics.

Keywords: ARDS; Acute respiratory distress syndrome; CENP; Continuous external negative pressure; Electrical impedance tomography; Lung mechanics; Mechanical ventilation; Negative pressure ventilation; Pleural pressure; Transpulmonary pressure.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Time course of the experiment (a) and positioning of the shell on the pig thorax (b). Legend: VATS, video-assisted thoracoscopy; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure; CENP, continuous external negative pressure
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
End-expiratory caudal transpulmonary pressure (left) and respiratory system elastance (right). Legend: CENP, continuous external negative pressure; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure. Triangles indicate different shell positions (abdomen and thorax), colours represent different PEEP levels, super-posed numbers indicate significance (P < 0.05) of the respective CENP level compared with the CENP level of the number and stars indicate difference between both positions
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Arterial oxygenation (PaO2, left) and cardiac output (CO, right). Legend: CENP, continuous external negative pressure; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure. Triangles indicate different shell positions (abdomen and thorax), colours represent different PEEP levels, super-posed numbers indicate significance (P < 0.05) of the respective CENP level compared with the CENP level of the number and stars indicate difference between both positions
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Centre of aeration (left) and centre of ventilation (right) as a percentage from dorsal. Legend: CENP, continuous external negative pressure; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure. Triangles indicate different shell positions (abdomen and thorax), colours represent different PEEP levels, super-posed numbers indicate significance (P < 0.05) of the respective CENP level compared with the CENP level of the number and stars indicate the difference between both positions

References

    1. Gattinoni L, Tonetti T, Quintel M (2018) Intensive care medicine in 2050: ventilator-induced lung injury. Intensive Care Med 44:76–78. 10.1007/s00134-017-4770-8
    1. Shekerdemian L, Bohn D. Cardiovascular effects of mechanical ventilation. Arch Dis Child. 1999;80:475–480. doi: 10.1136/adc.80.5.475.
    1. Writing Committee for the PROBESE Collaborative Group of the PROtective VEntilation Network (PROVEnet) for the Clinical Trial Network of the European Society of Anaesthesiology, Bluth T, Serpa Neto A, et al (2019) Effect of intraoperative high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with recruitment maneuvers vs low PEEP on postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 10.1001/jama.2019.7505
    1. PROVE Network Investigators for the Clinical Trial Network of the European Society of Anaesthesiology, Hemmes SNT, Gama de Abreu M, et al (2014) High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during general anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery (PROVHILO trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 384:495–503. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60416-5
    1. Helm E, Talakoub O, Grasso F, et al (2009) Use of dynamic CT in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with comparison of positive and negative pressure ventilation. Eur Radiol 19:50–57. 10.1007/s00330-008-1105-8
    1. Grasso F, Engelberts D, Helm E, et al (2008) Negative-pressure ventilation: better oxygenation and less lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 177:412–418. 10.1164/rccm.200707-1004OC
    1. Chierichetti M, Engelberts D, El-Khuffash A, et al (2012) Continuous negative abdominal distension augments recruitment of atelectatic lung. Crit Care Med 40:1864–1872. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318246bd6a
    1. Easa D, Mundie TG, Finn KC, et al. Continuous negative extrathoracic pressure versus positive end-expiratory pressure in piglets after saline lung lavage. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1994;17:161–168. doi: 10.1002/ppul.1950170305.
    1. Yoshida T, Engelberts D, Otulakowski G, et al (2018) Continuous negative abdominal pressure reduces ventilator-induced lung injury in a porcine model. Anesthesiology 129:163–172. 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002236
    1. Yoshida T, Engelberts D, Otulakowski G, et al (2018) Continuous negative abdominal pressure: mechanism of action and comparison with prone position. J Appl Physiol 125:107–116. 10.1152/japplphysiol.01125.2017
    1. Borelli M, Benini A, Denkewitz T, et al. Effects of continuous negative extrathoracic pressure versus positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury patients. Crit Care Med. 1998;26:1025–1031. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199806000-00021.
    1. Shneerson JM. Assisted ventilation. 5. Non-invasive and domiciliary ventilation: negative pressure techniques. Thorax. 1991;46:131–135. doi: 10.1136/thx.46.2.131.
    1. Lanteri CJ, Kano S, Sly PD. Validation of esophageal pressure occlusion test after paralysis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1994;17:56–62. doi: 10.1002/ppul.1950170110.
    1. Kiss T, Bluth T, Braune A, et al (2019) Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure and spontaneous breathing activity on regional lung inflammation in experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003649
    1. Carvalho AR, Pacheco SA, de Souza Rocha PV, et al (2013) Detection of tidal recruitment/overdistension in lung-healthy mechanically ventilated patients under general anesthesia: anesthesia & analgesia 116:677–684. 10.1213/ANE.0b013e318254230b
    1. Kano S, Lanteri CJ, Duncan AW, Sly PD. Influence of nonlinearities on estimates of respiratory mechanics using multilinear regression analysis. J Appl Physiol. 1994;77:1185–1197. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1994.77.3.1185.
    1. Huhle R, Serpa Neto A, Schultz MJ, Gama de Abreu M. Is mechanical power the final word on ventilator-induced lung injury?-no. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6:394. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.09.65.
    1. Sassoon CSH, Mahutte CK. Physiological basis of ventilator support. New York, NY, USA: Marcel Dekker; 1998. Work of breathing during mechanical ventilation.
    1. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, et al (2019) NLME: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models
    1. Lenth RV (2016) Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69:1–33. 10.18637/jss.v069.i01
    1. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria
    1. Matute-Bello G, Frevert CW, Martin TR (2008) Animal models of acute lung injury. Am J Phys Lung Cell Mol Phys 295:L379-L399. 10.1152/ajplung.00010.2008
    1. ARDS Definition Task Force, Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, et al (2012) Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition. JAMA 307:2526–2533. 10.1001/jama.2012.5669
    1. Ballard-Croft C, Wang D, Sumpter LR, et al (2012) Large-animal models of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann Thorac Surg 93:1331–1339. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.06.107
    1. Yoshida T, Engelberts D, Otulakowski G, et al (2018) Continuous negative abdominal pressure recruits lungs at lower distending pressures. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 197:534–537. 10.1164/rccm.201705-0979LE
    1. Krumpe P, Gorin AB (1981) Continuous negative external chest pressure decreases transvascular lung water transport in sheep after pseudomonas bacteremia. J Clin Invest 67:264–273. 10.1172/JCI110022

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe