Abstract
The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the utility of the mammalian swine model under simulated intensive care unit (sICU) conditions and mechanical ventilation (MV) for assessment of the trajectory of circadian rhythms of sedation requirement, core body temperature (CBT), pulmonary mechanics (PM) and gas exchange (GE). Data were collected prospectively with an observational time-series design to describe and compare circadian rhythms of selected study variables in four swine mechanically ventilated for up to seven consecutive days. We derived the circadian (total variance explained by rhythms of τ between 20 and 28 h)/ultradian (total variance explained by rhythms of τ between 1 and <20 h) bandpower ratio to assess the robustness of circadian rhythms, and compare findings between the early (first 3 days) and late (subsequent days) sICU stay. All pigs exhibited statistically significant circadian rhythms (τ between 20 and 28 h) in CBT, respiratory rate and peripheral oxygen saturation, but circadian rhythms were detected less frequently for sedation requirement, spontaneous minute volume, arterial oxygen tension, arterial carbon dioxide tension and arterial pH. Sedation did not appear to mask the circadian rhythms of CBT, PM and GE. Individual subject observations were more informative than group data, and provided preliminary evidence that (a) circadian rhythms of multiple variables are lost or desynchronized in mechanically ventilated subjects, (b) robustness of circadian rhythm varies with subject morbidity and (c) healthier pigs develop more robust circadian rhythm profiles over time in the sICU. Comparison of biological rhythm profiles among sICU subjects with similar severity of illness is needed to determine if the results of this pilot study are reproducible. Identification of consistent patterns may provide insight into subject morbidity and timing of such therapeutic interventions as weaning from MV.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. The present study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health (R15-NR04488), the Vivian L. Smith Foundation, University of Texas System, PARTNERS and the Jerold B. Katz Endowment for Nursing Research.