2004
DOI: 10.1203/01.pdr.0000106802.55721.8a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation Suppresses Inflammatory Response in Lung Tissue and Microdissected Alveolar Macrophages in Surfactant Depleted Piglets

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
1
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, HFOV may cause a direct lung injury and, thus, prolong lung ORIGINAL ARTICLE recovery. However, animal studies do not support this hypothesis (24)(25)(26), and human data do not exist. The overall management strategies of mechanical ventilation may differ with HFOV as compared with CMV.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Furthermore, HFOV may cause a direct lung injury and, thus, prolong lung ORIGINAL ARTICLE recovery. However, animal studies do not support this hypothesis (24)(25)(26), and human data do not exist. The overall management strategies of mechanical ventilation may differ with HFOV as compared with CMV.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…HFO has been previously found to be protective in animal models of lung injury. 28,29 Other authors have used HFO in animals of similar size 30 and because the tidal volumes delivered with HFO represent only a fraction of conventional tidal volumes, its use in the initial series of experiments reduced the potential for concomitant ventilator-induced lung injury.…”
Section: Implications Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was due to animal ethical considerations, evaluation of cost-benefits and in accordance with Norwegian standards since it would have necessitated an immense number of animals to perform time-response experiments for all inflammatory markers and then run a series for everyone. We therefore sought literature and found 4 hours [2, 15, 16, 22, 23] post-resuscitation time to be the best general time-point for all parameters. The choice of inflammatory markers to prove lung injury was also based on literature research, i.e.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%