Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysis

René Rissel; Miriam Renz; Katja Mohnke; Julian Riedel; Katharina Ritter; Alexander Ziebart; Robert Ruemmler; Erik K Hartmann; Jens Kamuf

doi:10.1186/s40635-022-00466-3

Comparison of two porcine acute lung injury models: a post-hoc analysis

Intensive Care Med Exp. 2022 Sep 5;10(1):37. doi: 10.1186/s40635-022-00466-3.

Authors

René Rissel¹, Miriam Renz², Katja Mohnke², Julian Riedel², Katharina Ritter², Alexander Ziebart², Robert Ruemmler², Erik K Hartmann², Jens Kamuf²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. Rene.Rissel@unimedizin-mainz.de.
² Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.

Abstract

Background: Acute 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.

Results: The 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).

Conclusions: Both 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.

Keywords: ARDS; Acute lung injury; Animal model; Pigs.