Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24401770›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology2014

Sedation using propofol induces similar diaphragm dysfunction and atrophy during spontaneous breathing and mechanical ventilation in rats.

Christian S Bruells, Karen Maes, Rolf Rossaint, Debby Thomas, Nele Cielen, Ingmar Bergs, Christian Bleilevens, Joachim Weis, Ghislaine Gayan-Ramirez

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Diaphragm dysfunction : Facts for clinicians].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2018
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Christian S BruellsFrom the Department of Surgical Intensive and Intermediate Care, and Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen, University of Excellence, Aachen, Germany (C.S.B.); Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Flanders, Laboratory of Pneumology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (K.M.); Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen, University of Excellence, Aachen, Germany (R.R., I.B., and C.B.); Laboratory of Pneumology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (D.T., N.C., and G.G.-R.); and Institute of Neuropathology and JARA, Translational Brain Medicine, Aachen; University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen, University of Excellence, Aachen, Germany (J.W.).
Karen Maes
Rolf Rossaint
Debby Thomas
Nele Cielen
Ingmar Bergs
Christian Bleilevens
Joachim Weis
Ghislaine Gayan-Ramirez
RWTH Aachen University · DEKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMechanical ventilation is crucial for patients with respiratory failure. The mechanical takeover of diaphragm function leads to diaphragm dysfunction and atrophy (ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction), with an increase in oxidative stress as a major contributor. In most patients, a sedative regimen has to be initiated to allow tube tolerance and ventilator synchrony. Clinical data imply a correlation between cumulative propofol dosage and diaphragm dysfunction, whereas laboratory investigations have revealed that propofol has some antioxidant properties. The authors hypothesized that propofol reduces markers of oxidative stress, atrophy, and contractile dysfunction in the diaphragm.

methodsMale Wistar rats (n = 8 per group) were subjected to either 24 h of mechanical ventilation or were undergone breathing spontaneously for 24 h under propofol sedation to test for drug effects. Another acutely sacrificed group served as controls. After sacrifice, diaphragm tissue was removed, and contractile properties, cross-sectional areas, oxidative stress, and proteolysis were examined. The gastrocnemius served as internal control.

resultsPropofol did not protect against diaphragm atrophy, oxidative stress, and protease activation. The decrease in tetanic force compared with controls was similar in the spontaneous breathing group (31%) and in the ventilated group (34%), and both groups showed the same amount of muscle atrophy. The gastrocnemius muscle fibers did not show atrophy.

conclusionsPropofol does not protect against ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction or oxidative injury. Notably, spontaneous breathing under propofol sedation resulted in the same amount of diaphragm atrophy and dysfunction although diaphragm activation per se protects against ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction. This makes a drug effect of propofol likely.

Indexed as

RespirationAnalysis of VarianceAnesthetics, IntravenousAnimalsDiaphragmDisease Models, AnimalMaleMuscular AtrophyOxidative StressPropofolRatsRats, WistarRespiration, ArtificialVentilator-Induced Lung InjuryAnesthetics, IntravenousPropofol

Identifiers

PMID24401770
OpenAlexW2122336040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.