ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2022
Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysis.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Animal models of critical illness in the Asia-Pacific region: current practices, shared challenges, and future directions.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Review
- Cardiosphere-derived cells in the primary prevention of sepsis-induced acute lung injury in pigs.PloS one · 2026Article
- Nebulized Lipopolysaccharide Causes Delayed Cortical Neuroinflammation in a Murine Model of Acute Lung Injury.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common disease in intensive care medicine. Despite intensive research, mortality rates are high, not even in COVID-19 ARDS. Thereby, pigs offer some advantages to study the characteristics of ARDS. Many different ARDS models exist. Most of the articles published focused on histopathological and microscopic lung alterations to identify the most suitable animal ARDS model. "Macroscopic" observations and descriptions are often missing. Therefore, we performed a post-hoc comparison of two common ARDS models for pigs: lipopolysaccharide (LPS) vs. a double-hit model (bronchoalveolar lavage + oleic acid infusion). We investigated hemodynamic, spirometric and laboratory changes as another main clinical part of ARDS.
resultsThe groups were compared by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a post-hoc Student-Newman-Keuls test. A p value lower than 0.05 was accepted as significant. All animals (n = 8 double-hit ARDS; n = 8 LPS ARDS) survived the observation period of 8 h. ARDS induction with reduced oxygen indices was successful performed in both models (76 ± 35/225 ± 54/212 ± 79 vs. 367 ± 64; T0/T4/T8 vs. BLH for double-hit; 238 ± 57/144 ± 59 vs. 509 ± 41; T4/T8 vs. BLH for LPS; p < 0.05). ARDS induced with LPS leads to more hemodynamic (mean arterial pulmonary pressure 35 ± 3/30 ± 3 vs. 28 ± 4/23 ± 4; T4/T8 LPS vs. double-hit; p < 0.05; doses of norepinephrine 1.18 ± 1.05 vs. 0.11 ± 0.16; LPS vs. double-hit for T8; p < 0.05) and inflammatory (pulmonary IL-6 expression: 2.41e-04 ± 1.08e-04 vs. 1.45e-05 ± 7.26e-06; LPS vs. double-hit; p < 0.05) alterations. ARDS induced by double-hit requires a more invasive ventilator strategy to maintain a sufficient oxygenation (PEEP at T4: 8 ± 3 vs. 6 ± 2; double-hit vs. LPS; p < 0.05).
conclusionsBoth animal ARDS models are feasible and are similar to human presentation of ARDS. If your respiratory research focus on hemodynamic/inflammation variables, the LPS-induced ARDS is a feasible model. Studying different ventilator strategies, the double-hit ARDS model offers a suitable approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.