Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Objectives: Lung-protective ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome aims for providing sufficient oxygenation and carbon dioxide clearance, while limiting the harmful effects of mechanical ventilation. “Flow-controlled ventilation”, providing a constant expiratory flow, has been suggested as a new lung-protective ventilation strategy. The aim of this study was to test whether flow-controlled ventilation attenuates lung injury in an animal model of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Design: Preclinical, randomized controlled animal study. Setting: Animal research facility. Subjects: Nineteen German landrace hybrid pigs. Intervention: Flow-controlled ventilation (intervention group) or volume-controlled ventilation (control group) with identical tidal volume (7 mL/kg) and positive end-expiratory pressure (9 cm H2O) after inducing acute respiratory distress syndrome with oleic acid. Measurements and Main Results: Pao 2 and Paco 2, minute volume, tracheal pressure, lung aeration measured via CT, alveolar wall thickness, cell infiltration, and surfactant protein A concentration in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Five pigs were excluded leaving n equals to 7 for each group. Compared with control, flow-controlled ventilation elevated Pao 2 (154 ± 21 vs 105 ± 9 torr; 20.5 ± 2.8 vs 14.0 ± 1.2 kPa; p = 0.035) and achieved comparable Paco 2 (57 ± 3 vs 54 ± 1 torr; 7.6 ± 0.4 vs 7.1 ± 0.1 kPa; p = 0.37) with a lower minute volume (6.4 ± 0.5 vs 8.7 ± 0.4 L/min; p < 0.001). Inspiratory plateau pressure was comparable in both groups (31 ± 2 vs 34 ± 2 cm H2O; p = 0.16). Flow-controlled ventilation increased normally aerated (24% ± 4% vs 10% ± 2%; p = 0.004) and decreased nonaerated lung volume (23% ± 6% vs 38% ± 5%; p = 0.033) in the dependent lung region. Alveolar walls were thinner (5.5 ± 0.1 vs 7.8 ± 0.2 µm; p < 0.0001), cell infiltration was lower (20 ± 2 vs 32 ± 2 n/field; p < 0.0001), and normalized surfactant protein A concentration was higher with flow-controlled ventilation (1.1 ± 0.04 vs 1.0 ± 0.03; p = 0.039). Conclusions: Flow-controlled ventilation enhances lung aeration in the dependent lung region and consequently improves gas exchange and attenuates lung injury. Control of the expiratory flow may provide a novel option for lung-protective ventilation.

Personalized antibiotherapy ensures that the antibiotic concentration remains in the optimal therapeutic window to maximize efficacy, minimize side effects, and avoid the emergence of drug resistance due to insufficient dosing. However, such individualized schemes need frequent sampling to tailor the blood antibiotic concentrations. To optimally integrate therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) into the clinical workflow, antibiotic levels can either be measured in blood using point‐of‐care testing (POCT), or can rely on noninvasive sampling. Here, a versatile biosensor with an antibody‐free assay for on‐site TDM is presented. The platform is evaluated with an animal study, where antibiotic concentrations are quantified in different matrices including whole blood, plasma, urine, saliva, and exhaled breath condensate (EBC). The clearance and the temporal evaluation of antibiotic levels in EBC and plasma are demonstrated. Influence of matrix effects on measured drug concentrations is determined by comparing the plasma levels with those in noninvasive samples. The system's potential for blood‐based POCT is further illustrated by tracking ß‑lactam concentrations in untreated blood samples. Finally, multiplexing capabilities are explored successfully for multianalyte/sample analysis. By enabling a rapid, low‐cost, sample‐independent, and multiplexed on‐site TDM, this system can shift the paradigm of “one‑size‐fits‐all” strategy.