Background The authors hypothesized that low tidal volume (VT) would minimize ventilator-induced lung injury regardless of the degree of mechanical power. The authors investigated the impact of power, obtained by different combinations of VT and respiratory rate (RR), on ventilator-induced lung injury in experimental mild acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods Forty Wistar rats received Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide intratracheally. After 24 h, 32 rats were randomly assigned to be mechanically ventilated (2 h) with a combination of different VT (6 ml/kg and 11 ml/kg) and RR that resulted in low and high power. Power was calculated as energy (ΔP,L2/E,L) × RR (ΔP,L = transpulmonary driving pressure; E,L = lung elastance), and was threefold higher in high than in low power groups. Eight rats were not mechanically ventilated and used for molecular biology analysis. Results Diffuse alveolar damage score, which represents the severity of edema, atelectasis, and overdistension, was increased in high VT compared to low VT, in both low (low VT: 11 [9 to 14], high VT: 18 [15 to 20]) and high (low VT: 19 [16 to 25], high VT: 29 [27 to 30]) power groups. At high VT, interleukin-6 and amphiregulin expressions were higher in high-power than in low-power groups. At high power, amphiregulin and club cell protein 16 expressions were higher in high VT than in low VT. Mechanical energy and power correlated well with diffuse alveolar damage score and interleukin-6, amphiregulin, and club cell protein 16 expression. Conclusions In experimental mild ARDS, even at low VT, high mechanical power promoted ventilator-induced lung injury. To minimize ventilator-induced lung injury, low VT should be combined with low power.

Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Pressure-support ventilation may worsen lung damage due to increased dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure. The authors hypothesized that, at the same tidal volume (VT) and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure, pressure-support and pressure-controlled ventilation would yield comparable lung damage in mild lung injury. Methods Male Wistar rats received endotoxin intratracheally and, after 24 h, were ventilated in pressure-support mode. Rats were then randomized to 2 h of pressure-controlled ventilation with VT, dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure, dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure, and inspiratory time similar to those of pressure-support ventilation. The primary outcome was the difference in dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure between pressure-support and pressure-controlled ventilation at similar VT; secondary outcomes were lung and diaphragm damage. Results At VT = 6 ml/kg, dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure was higher in pressure-support than pressure-controlled ventilation (12.0 ± 2.2 vs. 8.0 ± 1.8 cm H2O), whereas static transpulmonary driving pressure did not differ (6.7 ± 0.6 vs. 7.0 ± 0.3 cm H2O). Diffuse alveolar damage score and gene expression of markers associated with lung inflammation (interleukin-6), alveolar-stretch (amphiregulin), epithelial cell damage (club cell protein 16), and fibrogenesis (metalloproteinase-9 and type III procollagen), as well as diaphragm inflammation (tumor necrosis factor-α) and proteolysis (muscle RING-finger-1) were comparable between groups. At similar dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure, as well as dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure and inspiratory time, pressure-controlled ventilation increased VT, static transpulmonary driving pressure, diffuse alveolar damage score, and gene expression of markers of lung inflammation, alveolar stretch, fibrogenesis, diaphragm inflammation, and proteolysis compared to pressure-support ventilation. Conclusions In the mild lung injury model use herein, at the same VT, pressure-support compared to pressure-controlled ventilation did not affect biologic markers. However, pressure-support ventilation was associated with a major difference between static and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure; when the same dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure and inspiratory time were used for pressure-controlled ventilation, greater lung and diaphragm injury occurred compared to pressure-support ventilation.

No abstract