Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31721803›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Comparison of two experimental ARDS models in pigs using electrical impedance tomography.

Nadine Hochhausen, Jakob Orschulik, Andreas Follmann, Susana Aguiar Santos, Henriette Dohmeier, Steffen Leonhardt, Rolf Rossaint, Michael Czaplik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nadine HochhausenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3368-1992
Jakob OrschulikPhilips Chair for Medical Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Andreas FollmannDepartment of Anesthesiology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Susana Aguiar SantosPhilips Chair for Medical Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Henriette DohmeierDepartment of Anesthesiology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Steffen LeonhardtPhilips Chair for Medical Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Rolf RossaintDepartment of Anesthesiology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Michael CzaplikDepartment of Anesthesiology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnimal trials contribute to major achievements in medical science. The so-called lavage model is frequently used to evaluate ventilation strategies in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) using electrical impedance tomography (EIT). But, the lavage model itself might have systematic impacts on EIT parameters. Therefore, we established an additional experimental model, in which ARDS is caused by intravenously administered lipopolysaccharide (LPS). In this study, we want to examine if EIT measurements provide consistent results in both experimental models or whether the pathophysiology of the model influences the findings. Overall, we want to compare both experimental models regarding clinical parameters and EIT-derived indices, namely the global inhomogeneity (GI) index and the regional ventilation delay (RVD) index.

methodsNineteen pigs were included in this study, allocated to the control group (CO; n = 5), lavage group (LAV; n = 7) and LPS group (LPS; n = 7). After baseline measurements and the establishment of ARDS, assessment of respiratory mechanics, hemodynamics, gas exchange and EIT recordings were performed hourly over eight hours.

resultsIn both experimental ARDS models, EIT measurements provided reliable results. But, the GI and the RVD index did not show consistent results as compared to the CO group. Initially, GI and RVD index were higher in the LAV group but not in the LPS group as compared to the CO group. This effect disappeared during the study. Furthermore, the GI index and the RVD index were higher in the LAV group compared to the LPS group in the beginning as well. This, once again, disappeared. Clinical lung injury parameters remained more stable when using LPS.

conclusionThe two models showed quite different influences on the GI and RVD index. This implies, that the underlying pathophysiology affects EIT parameters and thus the findings. Hence, translation to EIT-guided clinical therapy in humans suffering from ARDS might be limited.

Indexed as

Electric ImpedanceTomography, X-Ray ComputedAnimalsBiomarkersFemaleHemodynamicsHumansRespiratory Distress SyndromeSwineBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID31721803
PMCPMC6853608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.