Low tidal volume ventilation ameliorates left ventricular dysfunction in mechanically ventilated rats following LPS-induced lung injury

Background: High tidal volume ventilation has shown to cause ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), possibly contributing to concomitant extrapulmonary organ dysfunction. The present study examined whether left ventricular (LV) function is dependent on tidal volume size and whether this effect is augmented during lipopolysaccharide(LPS)-induced lung injury. Methods: Twenty male Wistar rats were sedated, paralyzed and then randomized in four groups receiving mechanical ventilation with tidal volumes of 6 ml/kg or 19 ml/kg with or without intrapulmonary administration of LPS. A conductance catheter was placed in the left ventricle to generate pressure-volume loops, which were also obtained within a few seconds of vena cava occlusion to obtain relatively load-independent LV systolic and diastolic function parameters. The end-systolic elastance / effective arterial elastance (Ees/Ea) ratio was used as the primary parameter of LV systolic function with the end-diastolic elastance (Eed) as primary LV diastolic function. Results: Ees/Ea decreased over time in rats receiving LPS (p = 0.045) and high tidal volume ventilation (p = 0.007), with a lower Ees/Ea in the rats with high tidal volume ventilation plus LPS compared to the other groups (p < 0.001). Eed increased over time in all groups except for the rats receiving low tidal volume ventilation without LPS (p = 0.223). A significant interaction (p < 0.001) was found between tidal ventilation and LPS for Ees/Ea and Eed, and all rats receiving high tidal volume ventilation plus LPS died before the end of the experiment. Conclusions: Low tidal volume ventilation ameliorated LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction while preventing death following LPS-induced lung injury in mechanically ventilated rats. Our data advocates the use of low tidal volumes, not only to avoid VILI, but to avert ventilator-induced myocardial dysfunction as well

Mechanical ventilation with high tidal volumes attenuates myocardial dysfunction by decreasing cardiac edema in a rat model of LPS-induced peritonitis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Injurious mechanical ventilation (MV) may augment organ injury remote from the lungs. During sepsis, myocardial dysfunction is common and increased endothelial activation and permeability can cause myocardial edema, which may, among other factors, hamper myocardial function. We investigated the effects of MV with injuriously high tidal volumes on the myocardium in an animal model of sepsis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Normal rats and intraperitoneal (i.p.) lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-treated rats were ventilated with low (6 ml/kg) and high (19 ml/kg) tidal volumes (Vt) under general anesthesia. Non-ventilated animals served as controls. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure (CVP), cardiac output (CO) and pulmonary plateau pressure (P_plat) were measured. <it>Ex vivo </it>myocardial function was measured in isolated Langendorff-perfused hearts. Cardiac expression of endothelial vascular cell adhesion molecule (VCAM)-1 and edema were measured to evaluate endothelial inflammation and leakage.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>MAP decreased after LPS-treatment and Vt-dependently, both independent of each other and with interaction. MV Vt-dependently increased CVP and Pplat and decreased CO. LPS-induced peritonitis decreased myocardial function <it>ex vivo </it>but MV attenuated systolic dysfunction Vt-dependently. Cardiac endothelial VCAM-1 expression was increased by LPS treatment independent of MV. Cardiac edema was lowered Vt-dependently by MV, particularly after LPS, and correlated inversely with systolic myocardial function parameters <it>ex vivo</it>.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>MV attenuated LPS-induced systolic myocardial dysfunction in a Vt-dependent manner. This was associated with a reduction in cardiac edema following a lower transmural coronary venous outflow pressure during LPS-induced coronary inflammation.</p

Quality of Life in Subcutaneous or Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the PRAETORIAN Trial

BackgroundThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed to overcome the risk of lead-related complications associated with the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD). In contrast to the TV-ICD, the S-ICD is a completely extrathoracic device. Subsequently, complications differ between these 2 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, which might impact patient perceptions of the therapies. This prespecified secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial evaluates differences in quality of life.MethodsThe PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) randomized patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator indication, without the need for pacing to S-ICD or TV-ICD therapy. Two questionnaires were collected at baseline, discharge, 12 months, and 30 months. The Duke Activity Status Index measures cardiac-specific physical functioning, and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey measures physical and mental well-being, with the subscales bodily pain and mental health being of interest in this analysis. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare study arms, and a mixed model was used to describe the questionnaire outcomes over time.ResultsPatients were randomized to S-ICD (n=426) and TV-ICD (n=423). In the S-ICD group, 20% were women versus 19% in the TV-ICD group. The median age was 63 (interquartile range, 54-69) years in the S-ICD group versus 64 (interquartile range, 56-69) years in the TV-ICD group. There were no significant differences in the Duke Activity Status Index and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey subscales for bodily pain and mental health between the groups at any time point. Patients with a shock in the last 90 days had significantly lower scores for social functioning (P=0.008) and role limitations due to emotional problems (P=0.001) than patients without a shock, but this effect did not differ between treatment arms.ConclusionsIn a large randomized cohort of patients with an S-ICD or TV-ICD, no difference in overall quality of life was observed. However, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks resulted in a reduction in quality of life, regardless of the device type or appropriateness.RegistrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022

Device-related complications in the subcutaneous and transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicenter, randomised trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomised to receive an SICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections and the need for invasive interventions. RESULTS: Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead-dysfunction was most frequent (HR 0.69; P =0.11). In both groups half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared to the TV-ICD group (P <0.001, P =0.03 respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared to the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR 0.59; P =0.047). CONCLUSIONS: This secondary analysis shows that, lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared to the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision making in clinical practice

The predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation test success in subcutaneous ICD patients:a sub-analysis of the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial

BACKGROUND: The PRAETORIAN score estimates the risk of failure of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) therapy, using generator and lead positioning on bidirectional chest radiographs. The PRAETORIAN-DFT trial investigates whether PRAETORIAN score calculation is non-inferior to defibrillation testing (DFT), with regard to first shock efficacy in spontaneous events.OBJECTIVE: This pre-specified sub-analysis assesses the predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation success in induced ventricular arrhythmias.METHODS: This multicenter investigator initiated trial randomized 965 patients between DFT or PRAETORIAN score calculation after de novo S-ICD implant. Successful DFT was defined as conversion of an induced ventricular arrhythmia in less than five seconds from shock delivery, within two attempts. Bidirectional chest radiographs were obtained after implantation. Predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for DFT success was calculated for patients in the DFT arm.RESULTS: In total, 482 patients were randomized to undergo DFT. Of these patients, 457 underwent DFT according to protocol, of whom 445 had a successful DFT and 12 had a failed DFT. A PRAETORIAN score ≥ 90 had a positive predictive value of 25% for failed DFT and a PRAETORIAN score &lt; 90 had a negative predictive value of 99% for successful DFT. A PRAETORIAN score ≥ 90 was the strongest independent predictor for failed DFT (OR 33.77; CI 6.13-279.95, p&lt;0.001).CONCLUSION: A PRAETORIAN score &lt;90 serves as a reliable indicator for DFT success in S-ICD patients and a PRAETORIAN score ≥90 is a strong predictor for DFT failure.</p

Subcutaneous or Transvenous Defibrillator Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was designed to avoid complications related to the transvenous ICD lead by using an entirely extrathoracic placement. Evidence comparing these systems has been based primarily on observational studies. METHODS: We conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing were assigned to receive a subcutaneous ICD or transvenous ICD. The primary end point was the composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks; the noninferiority margin for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (subcutaneous ICD vs. transvenous ICD) was 1.45. A superiority analysis was prespecified if noninferiority was established. Secondary end points included death and appropriate shocks. RESULTS: A total of 849 patients (426 in the subcutaneous ICD group and 423 in the transvenous ICD group) were included in the analyses. At a median follow-up of 49.1 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 68 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 patients in the transvenous ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence, 15.1% and 15.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.39; P = 0.01 for noninferiority; P = 0.95 for superiority). Device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 44 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.09); inappropriate shocks occurred in 41 and 29 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.89 to 2.30). Death occurred in 83 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.70); appropriate shocks occurred in 83 and 57 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.12). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing, the subcutaneous ICD was noninferior to the transvenous ICD with respect to device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PRAETORIAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01296022.)