Correspondence  |   December 2017
In Reply
Author Notes
  • Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule, RWTH Aachen University, Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Aachen, Germany. suhlig@ukaachen.de
  • (Accepted for publication September 20, 2017.)
    (Accepted for publication September 20, 2017.)×
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   December 2017
In Reply
Anesthesiology 12 2017, Vol.127, 1042. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001935
Anesthesiology 12 2017, Vol.127, 1042. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001935
We thank Drs. Dreyfuss and Saumon for their comments on our recent work on one-hit models to study the biotrauma hypothesis.1  I agree that our study supports some of his earlier concerns and that my view has been too simplistic. However, it is important to note that our recent work does not discredit the biotrauma hypothesis itself. What our work suggests is that the biotrauma hypothesis is difficult to study in one-hit models using ventilation as the only hit, because in such models, there is either mild inflammation without lung injury or severe mechanical injury followed by secondary inflammation. One-hit models, therefore, do not well recapitulate the clinical situation where injured and inflamed lungs are exposed to a second proinflammatory stimulus, namely ventilation.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large