Advertisement

Near-real-time pulmonary shunt and dead space measurement with micropore membrane inlet mass spectrometry in pigs with induced pulmonary embolism or acute lung failure

  • D. Gerber
  • R. Vasireddy
  • B. Varadarajan
  • V. Hartwich
  • M. Y. Schär
  • B. Eberle
  • A. VogtEmail author
Original Research
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

The multiple inert gas elimination technique (MIGET) using gas chromatography (GC) is an established but time-consuming method of determining ventilation/perfusion (VA/Q) distributions. MIGET—when performed using Micropore Membrane Inlet Mass Spectrometry (MMIMS)—has been proven to correlate well with GC-MIGET and reduces analysis time substantially. We aimed at comparing shunt fractions and dead space derived from MMIMS–MIGET with Riley shunt and Bohr dead space, respectively. Thirty anesthetized pigs were randomly assigned to lavage or pulmonary embolism groups. Inert gas infusion (saline mixture of SF6, krypton, desflurane, enflurane, diethyl ether, acetone) was maintained, and after induction of lung damage, blood and breath samples were taken at 15-min intervals over 4 h. The samples were injected into the MMIMS, and resultant retention and excretion data were translated to VA/Q distributions. We compared MMIMS-derived shunt (MM-S) to Riley shunt, and MMIMS-derived dead space (MM-VD) to Bohr dead space in 349 data pairs. MM-S was on average lower than Riley shunt (− 0.05 ± 0.10), with lower and upper limits of agreement of − 0.15 and 0.04, respectively. MM-VD was on average lower than Bohr dead space (− 0.09 ± 0.14), with lower and upper limits of agreement of − 0.24 and 0.05. MM-S and MM-VD correlated and agreed well with Riley shunt and with Bohr dead space. MM-S increased significantly after lung injury only in the lavage group, whereas MM-VD increased significantly in both groups. This is the first work evaluating and demonstrating the feasibility of near real-time VA/Q distribution measurements with the MIGET and the MMIMS methods.

Keywords

Pulmonary embolism Intrapulmonary shunt and O2 therapy Respiratory function: dead space VQ mismatch: causes Level of hypoxemia: factors impacting 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Daniel Mettler and Olgica Beslac of the ESI, Experimental Surgery Unit, medical faculty of the University of Bern, Switzerland, for providing the infrastructure and very helpful support and assistance. We would also like to thank Lukas Häller, Master’s Student in Medicine at the University of Bern, for assistance with data acquisition, sample collection, handling and transport. The authors thank Jeannie Wurz for her proofreading and English language editing support. This research was supported by SNF Grant 320030_133046.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the cantonal ethics committee of Bern, Switzerland.

Supplementary material

10877_2018_245_MOESM1_ESM.csv (989 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (CSV 988 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Hedenstierna G, Edmark L. The effects of anesthesia and muscle paralysis on the respiratory system. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(10):1327–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-005-2761-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Powell ES, Pearce AC, Cook D, Davies P, Bishay E, Bowler GM, Gao F, Co-ordinators U. UK pneumonectomy outcome study (UKPOS): a prospective observational study of pneumonectomy outcome. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;4:41.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8090-4-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zambon M, Vincent JL. Mortality rates for patients with acute lung injury/ARDS have decreased over time. Chest. 2008;133(5):1120–7.  https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.07-2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riley RL, Cournand A, Donald KW. Analysis of factors affecting partial pressures of oxygen and carbon dioxide in gas and blood of lungs; methods. J Appl Physiol. 1951;4(2):102–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wagner PD. The multiple inert gas elimination technique (MIGET). Intensive Care Med. 2008;34(6):994–1001.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-008-1108-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sapsford DJ, Jones JG. The PIO2 vs. SpO2 diagram: a non-invasive measure of pulmonary oxygen exchange. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1995;12(4):375–86.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thomsen LP, Karbing DS, Smith BW, Murley D, Weinreich UM, Kjærgaard S, Toft E, Thorgaard P, Andreassen S, Rees SE. Clinical refinement of the automatic lung parameter estimator (ALPE). J Clin Monit Comput. 2013;27(3):341–50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-013-9442-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wagner PD, Dantzker DR, Dueck R, Clausen JL, West JB. Ventilation-perfusion inequality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Clin Investig. 1977;59(2):203–16.  https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI108630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baumgardner JE, Choi IC, Vonk-Noordegraaf A, Frasch HF, Neufeld GR, Marshall BE. Sequential V(A)/Q distributions in the normal rabbit by micropore membrane inlet mass spectrometry. J Appl Physiol. 2000;(1985) 89(5):1699–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duenges B, Vogt A, Bodenstein M, Wang H, Bohme S, Rohrig B, Baumgardner JE, Markstaller K. A comparison of micropore membrane inlet mass spectrometry-derived pulmonary shunt measurement with Riley shunt in a porcine model. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(6):1831–5.  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181bbc401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kretzschmar M, Schilling T, Vogt A, Rothen HU, Borges JB, Hachenberg T, Larsson A, Baumgardner JE, Hedenstierna G. Multiple inert gas elimination technique by micropore membrane inlet mass spectrometry—a comparison with reference gas chromatography. J Appl Physiol. 2013;(1985) 115(8):1107–18.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00072.2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hlastala MP, Colley PS, Cheney FW. Pulmonary shunt: a comparison between oxygen and inert gas infusion methods. J Appl Physiol. 1975;39(6):1048–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tusman G, Sipmann FS, Borges JB, Hedenstierna G, Bohm SH. Validation of Bohr dead space measured by volumetric capnography. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(5):870–4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-011-2164-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neumann P, Hedenstierna G. Ventilation-perfusion distributions in different porcine lung injury models. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2001;45(1):78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rees SE, Kjaergaard S, Andreassen S, Hedenstierna G. Reproduction of MIGET retention and excretion data using a simple mathematical model of gas exchange in lung damage caused by oleic acid infusion. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2006;101(3):826–32.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01481.2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kjaergaard B, Kristensen SR, Risom M, Larsson A. A porcine model of massive, totally occlusive, pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res. 2009;124(2):226–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2009.01.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wagner PD, Saltzman HA, West JB. Measurement of continuous distributions of ventilation-perfusion ratios: theory. J Appl Physiol. 1974;36(5):588–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Riley RL, Cournand A. Ideal alveolar air and the analysis of ventilation-perfusion relationships in the lungs. J Appl Physiol. 1949;1(12):825–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bohr C. Über die Lungenatmung. Skand Arch Physiol. 1891;2:236–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fowler WS. Lung function studies; the respiratory dead space. Am J Physiol. 1948;154(3):405–16.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tusman G, Sipmann FS, Bohm SH. Rationale of dead space measurement by volumetric capnography. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(4):866–74.  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e318247f6cc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Team RC. (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. 2015. http://www.R-projectorg.
  23. 23.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kretzschmar M, Kozian A, Baumgardner JE, Schreiber J, Hedenstierna G, Larsson A, Hachenberg T, Schilling T. Bronchoconstriction induced by inhaled methacholine delays desflurane uptake and elimination in a piglet model. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2016;220:88–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resp.2015.09.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Batchinsky AI, Weiss WB, Jordan BS, Dick EJ Jr, Cancelada DA, Cancio LC. Ventilation-perfusion relationships following experimental pulmonary contusion. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2007;103(3):895–902.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00563.2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    George SC, Babb AL, Hlastala MP. Dynamics of soluble gas exchange in the airways. III. Single-exhalation breathing maneuver. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1993;75(6):2439–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Anderson JC, Hlastala MP. Impact of airway gas exchange on the multiple inert gas elimination technique: theory. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010;38(3):1017–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wagner PD, Laravuso RB, Goldzimmer E, Naumann PF, West JB. Distribution of ventilation-perfusion ratios in dogs with normal and abnormal lungs. J Appl Physiol. 1975;38(6):1099–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University HospitalUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations