You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Variable Ventilation Improved Respiratory System Mechanics and Ameliorated Pulmonary Damage in a Rat Model of Lung Ischemia-Reperfusion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2017.00257 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
André Soluri-Martins, Lillian Moraes, Raquel S. Santos, Cintia L. Santos, Robert Huhle, Vera L. Capelozzi, Paolo Pelosi, Pedro L. Silva, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Patricia R. M. Rocco |
| Abstract |
Lung ischemia-reperfusion injury remains a major complication after lung transplantation. Variable ventilation (VV) has been shown to improve respiratory function and reduce pulmonary histological damage compared to protective volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in different models of lung injury induced by endotoxin, surfactant depletion by saline lavage, and hydrochloric acid. However, no study has compared the biological impact of VV vs. VCV in lung ischemia-reperfusion injury, which has a complex pathophysiology different from that of other experimental models. Thirty-six animals were randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) ischemia-reperfusion (IR), in which the left pulmonary hilum was completely occluded and released after 30 min; and (2) Sham, in which animals underwent the same surgical manipulation but without hilar clamping. Immediately after surgery, the left (IR-injured) and right (contralateral) lungs from 6 animals per group were removed, and served as non-ventilated group (NV) for molecular biology analysis. IR and Sham groups were further randomized to one of two ventilation strategies: VCV (n = 6/group) [tidal volume (VT) = 6 mL/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) = 2 cmH2O, fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) = 0.4]; or VV, which was applied on a breath-to-breath basis as a sequence of randomly generated VT values (n = 1200; mean VT = 6 mL/kg), with a 30% coefficient of variation. After 5 min of ventilation and at the end of a 2-h period (Final), respiratory system mechanics and arterial blood gases were measured. At Final, lungs were removed for histological and molecular biology analyses. Respiratory system elastance and alveolar collapse were lower in VCV than VV (mean ± SD, VCV 3.6 ± 1.3 cmH20/ml and 2.0 ± 0.8 cmH20/ml, p = 0.005; median [interquartile range], VCV 20.4% [7.9-33.1] and VV 5.4% [3.1-8.8], p = 0.04, respectively). In left lungs of IR animals, VCV increased the expression of interleukin-6 and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 compared to NV, with no significant differences between VV and NV. Compared to VCV, VV increased the expression of surfactant protein-D, suggesting protection from type II epithelial cell damage. In conclusion, in this experimental lung ischemia-reperfusion model, VV improved respiratory system elastance and reduced lung damage compared to VCV. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 15% |
| Researcher | 2 | 15% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 23% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,418,183
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,441
of 13,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,461
of 310,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#191
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,720 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.