↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The differential effects of inspiratory, expiratory, and combined resistive breathing on healthy lung

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
The differential effects of inspiratory, expiratory, and combined resistive breathing on healthy lung
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/copd.s106337
Pubmed ID
Authors

Konstantinos Loverdos, Dimitrios Toumpanakis, Eleni Litsiou, Vassiliki Karavana, Constantinos Glynos, Christina Magkou, Stamatios Theocharis, Theodoros Vassilakopoulos

Abstract

Combined resistive breathing (CRB) is the hallmark of obstructive airway disease pathophysiology. We have previously shown that severe inspiratory resistive breathing (IRB) induces acute lung injury in healthy rats. The role of expiratory resistance is unknown. The possibility of a load-dependent type of resistive breathing-induced lung injury also remains elusive. Our aim was to investigate the differential effects of IRB, expiratory resistive breathing (ERB), and CRB on healthy rat lung and establish the lowest loads required to induce injury. Anesthetized tracheostomized rats breathed through a two-way valve. Varying resistances were connected to the inspiratory, expiratory, or both ports, so that the peak inspiratory pressure (IRB) was 20%-40% or peak expiratory (ERB) was 40%-70% of maximum. CRB was assessed in inspiratory/expiratory pressures of 30%/50%, 40%/50%, and 40%/60% of maximum. Quietly breathing animals served as controls. At 6 hours, respiratory system mechanics were measured, and bronchoalveolar lavage was performed for measurement of cell and protein concentration. Lung tissue interleukin-6 and interleukin-1β levels were estimated, and a lung injury histological score was determined. ERB produced significant, load-independent neutrophilia, without mechanical or permeability derangements. IRB 30% was the lowest inspiratory load that provoked lung injury. CRB increased tissue elasticity, bronchoalveolar lavage total cell, macrophage and neutrophil counts, protein and cytokine levels, and lung injury score in a dose-dependent manner. In conclusion, CRB load dependently deranges mechanics, increases permeability, and induces inflammation in healthy rats. ERB is a putative inflammatory stimulus for the lung.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 47%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 July 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#2,403
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,534
of 367,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#96
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. 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 367,255 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 96 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.