+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Effects of elevated positive end-expiratory pressure on diaphragmatic blood flow and vascular resistance during mechanical ventilation


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Although mechanical ventilation (MV) is a life-saving intervention, prolonged MV can lead to deleterious effects on diaphragm function, including vascular incompetence and weaning failure. During MV, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is used to maintain small airway patency and mitigate alveolar damage. We tested the hypothesis that increased intrathoracic pressure with high levels of PEEP would increase diaphragm vascular resistance and decrease perfusion. Female Sprague-Dawley rats (~6 mo) were randomly divided into two groups receiving low PEEP (1 cmH 2O; n = 10) or high PEEP (9 cmH 2O; n = 9) during MV. Blood flow, via fluorescent microspheres, was determined during spontaneous breathing (SB), low-PEEP MV, high-PEEP MV, low-PEEP MV + surgical laparotomy (LAP), and high-PEEP MV + pneumothorax (PTX). Compared with SB, both low-PEEP MV and high-PEEP MV increased total diaphragm and medial costal vascular resistance ( P ≤ 0.05) and reduced total and medial costal diaphragm blood flow ( P ≤ 0.05). Also, during MV medial costal diaphragm vascular resistance was greater and blood flow lower with high-PEEP MV vs. low-PEEP MV ( P ≤ 0.05). Diaphragm perfusion with high-PEEP MV+PTX and low-PEEP MV were not different ( P > 0.05). The reduced total and medial costal diaphragmatic blood flow with low-PEEP MV appears to be independent of intrathoracic pressure changes and is attributed to increased vascular resistance and diaphragm quiescence. Mechanical compression of the diaphragm vasculature may play a role in the lower diaphragmatic blood flow at higher levels of PEEP. These reductions in blood flow to the quiescent diaphragm during MV could predispose critically ill patients to weaning complications.

          NEW & NOTEWORTHY This is the first study, to our knowledge, demonstrating that mechanical ventilation, with low and high positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP), increases vascular resistance and reduces total and regional diaphragm perfusion. The rapid reduction in diaphragm perfusion and increased vascular resistance may initiate a cascade of events that predispose the diaphragm to vascular and thus contractile dysfunction with prolonged mechanical ventilation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

          Objective To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004. Design Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. Methods We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation [1] indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations [2] indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. Results Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7–10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7–9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). Conclusion There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Management of Critically Ill Adults With COVID-19

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction.


                Author and article information

                J Appl Physiol (1985)
                J. Appl. Physiol
                J Appl Physiol (1985)
                Journal of Applied Physiology
                American Physiological Society (Bethesda, MD )
                1 September 2020
                30 July 2020
                30 July 2020
                : 129
                : 3
                : 626-635
                [1] 1Department of Kinesiology, Kansas State University , Manhattan, Kansas
                [2] 2Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, RWTH Aachen University , Aachen, Germany
                [3] 3Department of Anatomy and Physiology, Kansas State University , Manhattan, Kansas
                Author notes
                Correspondence: A. G. Horn ( andrewghorn@ 123456ksu.edu ).
                JAPPL-00320-2020 JAPPL-00320-2020
                Copyright © 2020 the American Physiological Society
                : 28 April 2020
                : 6 July 2020
                : 29 July 2020
                Funded by: HHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH) 10.13039/100000002
                Award ID: 1R15HL137156-01A1
                Award ID: 1R15HL137156-01A1
                Funded by: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) 10.13039/501100001659
                Award ID: BR3998/1-1
                Funded by: Ruth L. Kirschtein National Research Service Award
                Award ID: F31HL145981
                Research Article

                medial costal diaphragm,vascular function,ventilatory muscle failure


                Comment on this article