
Oxygenation, inflammatory response and lung injury during one lung ventilation in rabbits using inspired oxygen fraction of 0.6 vs. 1.0
Zeping Xu, Lianbing Gu, Qingming Bian, Pengyi Li, Lijun Wang, Jingyuan Zhang, Yanning Qian
Journal of Biomedical Research ›› 2017, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (1) : 56-64.
Oxygenation, inflammatory response and lung injury during one lung ventilation in rabbits using inspired oxygen fraction of 0.6 vs. 1.0
Maintaining adequate oxygenation during one-lung ventilation (OLV) requires high inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2). However, high FiO2 also causes inflammatory response and lung injury. Therefore, it remains a great interest to clinicians and scientists to optimize the care of patients undergoing OLV. The aim of this study was to determine and compare oxygenation, inflammatory response and lung injury during OLV in rabbits using FiO2 of 0.6 vs. 1.0. After 30 minutes of two-lung ventilation (TLV) as baseline, 30 rabbits were randomly assigned to three groups receiving mechanical ventilation for 3 hours: the sham group, receiving TLV with 0.6 FiO2; the 1.0 FiO2 group, receiving OLV with 1.0 FiO2; the 0.6 FiO2 group, receiving OLV with 0.6 FiO2. Pulse oximetry was continuously monitored and arterial blood gas analysis was intermittently conducted. Histopathologic study of lung tissues was performed and inflammatory cytokines and the mRNA and protein of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-кB) p65 were determined. Three of the 10 rabbits in the 0.6 FiO2 group suffered hypoxemia, defined by pulse oximetric saturation (SpO2) less than 90%. Partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), acute lung injury (ALI) score, myeloperoxidase (MPO), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), mRNA and protein of NF-кB p65 were lower in the 0.6 FiO2 group than in the 1.0 FiO2 group. In conclusion, during OLV, if FiO2 of 0.6 can be tolerated, lung injury associated with high FiO2 can be minimized. Further study is needed to validate this finding in human subjects.
one-lung ventilation / oxygen / acute lung injury / rabbits
Fig.1 Demonstration of the customized bronchial blocker16.A: Dimensions of the customized bronchial blocker. B: A photograph of the customized bronchial blocker. C: Major details of the customized bronchial blocker. D: In vivo right-one lung ventilation (OLV) model created with the customized bronchial blocker. |
Tab.1 Weight of the rabbits and total usage of urethane, cisatracurium, and Ringer's solution |
Sham (n=10) | 1.0 FiO2 (n=10) | 1.0 FiO2 (n=10) | |
---|---|---|---|
Weight (kg) | 2.06±0.14 | 2.08±0.14 | 2.10±0.13 |
Urethane (g) | 19.2±2.3 | 18.4±2.0 | 20.1±2.4 |
Cisatracurium (mg) | 11.1±1.1 | 11.3±1.8 | 12.1±3.0 |
Ringer's solution (mL) | 118±11 | 110±14 | 116±11 |
Data are expressed as mean±SD (standard deviation). There were no differences among the three groups, P>0.05. |
Tab.2 Peak pressure (Ppeak), heart rate (HR), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) over time. |
Group | 0 | 10 minutes | 30 minutes | 1 hour | 2 hours | 3 hours | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ppeak (kpa) | Sham | 1.64±0.16 | 1.69±0.18 | 1.63±0.11 | 1.67±0.09 | 1.68±0.11 | 1.68±0.12 |
1.0 FiO2 | 1.65±0.26 | 2.05±0.23* | 2.04±0.27* | 2.10±0.32* | 2.05±0.39* | 2.13±0.43* | |
0.6 FiO2 | 1.68±0.07 | 1.91±0.13* | 1.94±0.09* | 1.93±0.17* | 1.96±0.21* | 1.97±0.13* | |
HR (/minute) | Sham | 241±28 | 236±26 | 227±19 | 222±20 | 208±25 | 209±25 |
1.0 FiO2 | 225±21 | 234±23 | 236±16 | 221±13 | 214±29 | 199±28 | |
0.6 FiO2 | 243±13 | 223±14 | 227±16 | 218±13 | 219±30 | 207±29 | |
MAP (mmHg) | Sham | 77±10 | 78±14 | 78±12 | 76±14 | 76±11 | 77±13 |
1.0 FiO2 | 69±12 | 74±12 | 72±12 | 73±11 | 71±11 | 73±8 | |
0.6 FiO2 | 76±12 | 72±11 | 74±10 | 76±10 | 79±9 | 79±11 |
Data are expressed as mean±SD (standard deviation). n=10 in the sham and 1.0 FiO2 group, and n=7 in the 0.6 FiO2 group. * P<0.05 vs. the sham group. |
Fig.2 Effect of FiO2 on partial PaO2 and SaO2 over time.This figure shows a lower mean PaO2 in the 0.6 FiO2 group at 2 hours and 3 hours of one lung ventilation (OLV), compared with those in the 1.0 FiO2 group. SaO2 shows no differences between the 0.6 FiO2 and 1.0 FiO2 group over time.* P<0.05 vs. the sham group, † P<0.05 vs. the 1.0 FiO2 group. |
Tab.3 Partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), arterial hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SaO2), arterial oxygen tension (PaO2)/ inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2), acidity (pH), and carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) over time. |
Group | 0 | 10 minutes | 30 minutes | 1 hour | 2 hours | 3 hours | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PO2 (mmHg) | Sham | 329±23 | 336±21 | 335±38 | 335±30 | 345±26 | 344±28 |
1.0 FiO2 | 319±32 | 128±42* | 91±29* | 107±35* | 138±45* | 169±55* | |
0.6 FiO2 | 329±17 | 102±34* | 64±16* | 76±24* | 92±23*† | 102±29*† | |
SaO2 (%) | Sham | 100±0 | 100±0 | 100±0 | 100±0 | 100±0 | 100±0 |
1.0 FiO2 | 100±0 | 98±2* | 96±2* | 97±2* | 98±2 | 99±1 | |
0.6 FiO2 | 100±0 | 98±2* | 94±2* | 96±2* | 97±2* | 98±2* | |
PaO2/FiO2 | Sham | 549±39 | 560±35 | 558±64 | 559±51 | 575±43 | 573±46 |
1.0 FiO2 | 531±54 | 128±42* | 91±29* | 107±35* | 138±45* | 169±55* | |
0.6 FiO2 | 549±28 | 170±57* | 106±26* | 127±40* | 154±38* | 170±48* | |
pH | Sham | 7.57±0.12 | 7.45±0.18 | 7.47±0.10 | 7.47±0.09 | 7.46±0.11 | 7.38±0.12 |
1.0 FiO2 | 7.60±0.12 | 7.49±0.09 | 7.44±0.10 | 7.40±0.09 | 7.39±0.08 | 7.39±0.08 | |
0.6 FiO2 | 7.59±0.10 | 7.52±0.11 | 7.47±0.07 | 7.44±0.06 | 7.42±0.03 | 7.43±0.06 | |
PaCO2(mmHg) | Sham | 26±3 | 28±3 | 28±4 | 26±4 | 26±5 | 24±5 |
1.0 FiO2 | 25±3 | 27±3 | 30±4 | 30±6 | 29±4 | 27±4 | |
0.6 FiO2 | 27±2 | 27±4 | 29±4 | 29±4 | 29±4 | 25±3 |
Data are expressed as mean±SD (standard deviation). n=10 in the sham and 1.0 FiO2 group, n=7 in the 0.6 FiO2 group. * P<0.05 vs. the sham group, †P<0.05 vs. the 1.0 FiO2 group. |
Fig.3 Representative histological sections of both lungs at 3 hours.There are less edema, thickening of the alveolar wall, and infiltration of inflammatory cells into the alveolar space and interstitial space in the 0.6 FiO2 group, with a lower ALI score (the left lung: 2.1±1.3 vs. 3.3±1.1, P<0.05; the right lung: 2.3±1.1 vs. 3.4±0.7, P<0.05), compared with those in the 1.0 FiO2 group. All photos are 200 magnifications. |
Fig.4 Myeloperoxidase (MPO), tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) in lung tissues.Levels of MPO, TNF-α and IL-6 in lung tissue homogenates from the collapsed and ventilated lungs are higher in the 0.6 FiO2 and 1.0 FiO2 group at 3 hours, compared with the sham group, while they are lower in the 0.6 FiO2 group, compared with those in 1.0 FiO2 group. * P<0.05. |
Fig.5 The mRNA expression and protein level of NF-кB p65 in bilateral lung tissues.The mRNA expression and protein level of NF-кB p65 in the bilateral lungs are higher at 3 hours in the 0.6 FiO2 and 1.0 FiO2 group, compared with the sham group, while they are lower in the 0.6 FiO2 group, compared with those in the 1.0 FiO2 group. * P<0.05. |
[1] |
Kim KN, Kim DW, Jeong MA,
Pubmed
|
[2] |
Hopf HW, Holm J. Hyperoxia and infection[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol, 2008, 22(3): 553–569
Pubmed
|
[3] |
Magnusson L, Spahn DR. New concepts of atelectasis during general anaesthesia[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2003, 91(1): 61–72
Pubmed
|
[4] |
Licker M, Fauconnet P, Villiger Y,
Pubmed
|
[5] |
de Abreu MG, Pelosi P. How can we prevent postoperative pulmonary complications[J]? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, 2013, 26(2): 105–106
Pubmed
|
[6] |
Yang M, Ahn HJ, Kim K,
Pubmed
|
[7] |
Della Rocca G, Coccia C. Acute lung injury in thoracic surgery[J]. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, 2013, 26(1): 40–46
Pubmed
|
[8] |
Royer F, Martin DJ, Benchetrit G,
Pubmed
|
[9] |
Royston BD, Webster NR, Nunn JF. Time course of changes in lung permeability and edema in the rat exposed to 100% oxygen[J]. J Appl Physiol (1985), 1990, 69(4): 1532–1537
Pubmed
|
[10] |
Kallet RH, Matthay MA. Hyperoxic acute lung injury[J]. Respir Care, 2013, 58(1): 123–141
Pubmed
|
[11] |
Brower RG, Ware LB, Berthiaume Y,
Pubmed
|
[12] |
Xu ZP, Gu LB, Bian QM,
Pubmed
|
[13] |
You Z, Feng D, Xu H,
Pubmed
|
[14] |
Tripsianis G, Papadopoulou E, Anagnostopoulos K,
Pubmed
|
[15] |
Liu D, Zeng BX, Shang Y. Decreased expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma in endotoxin-induced acute lung injury[J]. Physiol Res, 2006, 55(3): 291–299
Pubmed
|
[16] |
Karzai W, Schwarzkopf K. Hypoxemia during one-lung ventilation: prediction, prevention, and treatment[J]. Anesthesiology, 2009, 110(6): 1402–1411
Pubmed
|
[17] |
Bailey TC, Martin EL, Zhao L,
Pubmed
|
[18] |
Sinclair SE, Altemeier WA, Matute-Bello G,
Pubmed
|
[19] |
Makena PS, Gorantla VK, Ghosh MC,
Pubmed
|
[20] |
Li LF, Liao SK, Ko YS,
Pubmed
|
[21] |
Schwarzkopf K, Klein U, Schreiber T,
Pubmed
|
[22] |
Slinger P, Suissa S, Triolet W. Predicting arterial oxygenation during one-lung anaesthesia[J]. Can J Anaesth, 1992, 39(10): 1030–1035
Pubmed
|
[23] |
Fujiwara M, Abe K, Mashimo T. The effect of positive end-expiratory pressure and continuous positive airway pressure on the oxygenation and shunt fraction during one-lung ventilation with propofol anesthesia[J]. J Clin Anesth, 2001, 13(7): 473–477
Pubmed
|
[24] |
Michelet P, Roch A, Brousse D,
Pubmed
|
[25] |
Komatsu Y, Yamamoto H, Tsushima K,
Pubmed
|
[26] |
Leite CF, Calixto MC, Toro IF,
Pubmed
|
[27] |
Sugasawa Y, Yamaguchi K, Kumakura S,
Pubmed
|
[28] |
Ishikawa S.Oxygenation may improve with time during one-lung ventilation[J]. Anesth Analg,1999.89: 258–259.
|
[29] |
You Z, Yao S, Liang H. Comparison of lung injury degrees after one-lung ventilation for different time[J]. Chin J Crit Care Med, 27(2): 133–135.
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |