Research

A comparison of biologically variable ventilation to recruitment manoeuvres in a porcine model of acute lung injury

Duane J Funk^1* , M Ruth Graham^1* , Linda G Girling¹ , James A Thliveris² , Bruce M McManus³ , Elizabeth KY Walker³ , Edward S Rector⁴ , Craig Hillier⁵ , J Elliott Scott⁵ and W Alan C Mutch^1*

¹  Department of Anaesthesia, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

²  Department Human Anatomy and Cell Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

³  James Hogg iCapture Centre, McDonald Research Laboratories, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Cananda

⁴  Department of Immunology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

⁵  Department of Oral Biology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

author email corresponding author email* Contributed equally

Respiratory Research 2004, 5:22doi:10.1186/1465-9921-5-22

Published:	24 November 2004

Abstract

Background

Biologically variable ventilation (return of physiological variability in rate and tidal volume using a computer-controller) was compared to control mode ventilation with and without a recruitment manoeuvre – 40 cm H₂O for 40 sec performed hourly; in a porcine oleic acid acute lung injury model.

Methods

We compared gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and measured bronchoalveolar fluid for inflammatory cytokines, cell counts and surfactant function. Lung injury was scored by light microscopy. Pigs received mechanical ventilation (F_IO₂ = 0.3; PEEP 5 cm H₂O) in control mode until PaO₂ decreased to 60 mm Hg with oleic acid infusion (PaO₂/F_IO₂ <200 mm Hg). Additional PEEP to 10 cm H₂O was added after injury. Animals were randomized to one of the 3 modes of ventilation and followed for 5 hr after injury.

Results

PaO₂ and respiratory system compliance was significantly greater with biologically variable ventilation compared to the other 2 groups. Mean and mean peak airway pressures were also lower. There were no differences in cell counts in bronchoalveolar fluid by flow cytometry, or interleukin-8 and -10 levels between groups. Lung injury scoring revealed no difference between groups in the regions examined. No differences in surfactant function were seen between groups by capillary surfactometry.

Conclusions

In this porcine model of acute lung injury, various indices to measure injury or inflammation did not differ between the 3 approaches to ventilation. However, when using a low tidal volume strategy with moderate levels of PEEP, sustained improvements in arterial oxygen tension and respiratory system compliance were only seen with BVV when compared to CMV or CMV with a recruitment manoeuvre.