| Title |
Protective ventilation reduces Pseudomonas aeruginosa growth in lung tissue in a porcine pneumonia model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40635-017-0152-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jesper Sperber, Axel Nyberg, Miklos Lipcsey, Åsa Melhus, Anders Larsson, Jan Sjölin, Markus Castegren |
| Abstract |
Mechanical ventilation with positive end expiratory pressure and low tidal volume, i.e. protective ventilation, is recommended in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, the effect of protective ventilation on bacterial growth during early pneumonia in non-injured lungs is not extensively studied. The main objectives were to compare two different ventilator settings on Pseudomonas aeruginosa growth in lung tissue and the development of lung injury. A porcine model of severe pneumonia was used. The protective group (n = 10) had an end expiratory pressure of 10 cm H2O and a tidal volume of 6 ml x kg(-1). The control group (n = 10) had an end expiratory pressure of 5 cm H2O and a tidal volume of 10 ml x kg(-1). 10(11) colony forming units of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were inoculated intra-tracheally at baseline, after which the experiment continued for 6 h. Two animals from each group received only saline, and served as sham animals. Lung tissue samples from each animal were used for bacterial cultures and wet-to-dry weight ratio measurements. The protective group displayed lower numbers of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (p < 0.05) in the lung tissue, and a lower wet-to-dry ratio (p < 0.01) than the control group. The control group deteriorated in arterial oxygen tension/inspired oxygen fraction, whereas the protective group was unchanged (p < 0.01). In early phase pneumonia, protective ventilation with lower tidal volume and higher end expiratory pressure has the potential to reduce the pulmonary bacterial burden and the development of lung injury. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Colombia | 1 | 9% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 9% |
| Germany | 1 | 9% |
| Belgium | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Librarian | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 September 2017.
All research outputs
#4,468,084
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#106
of 449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,013
of 316,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 316,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.