The relationship between right duct lymph flow and extravascular lung water was studied in 3 normal dogs and 15 dogs with pulmonary edema induced by alpha-naphthylthiourea (ANTU). Right duct lymph was collected in a pouch created by ligating jugular, subclavian, and brachiocephalic veins. Extravascular lung water was measured in vivo by double indicator dilution and post-mortem by weighting lungs before and after drying. Cardiac output, pulmonary artery and pulmonary artery wedge pressures, and the concentration of protein and electrolytes in plasma and right duct lymph were determined. Eight lungs were examined by light and electron microscopy. There was a direct relationship between right duct lymph flow (RDLF in milliters per hour per gram dry lung) and extravascular lung water (Qwl in milliliters per gram dry lung) which was best described by the equation RDLF=0.75-0.26 Qwl+0.03 (Qwl).2 Dogs with severe ANTU-induced edema had extensive lung capillary endothelial destruction but only mild interstitial swelling and no visible damage to type I alveolar epithelial cells. Cardiac output, pulmonary artery and wedge pressures, and protein and electrolyte concentrations did not correlate with either extravascular water or right duct flow. Thus, in ANTU-induced pulmonary edema right duct lymph flow was directly related to extravascular lung water with the highest flows occurring with severe edema. The absence of a rapid increase in lymph flow with small increases in extravascular water may be due to early sequestration of fluid in the alveolar space. Hemodynamic changes did not account for changes in lung water or lymph flow. The pulmonary interstitial factors relating increased extravascular water to lymph drainage remain to be determined.
M B Pine, P M Beach, T S Cottrell, M Scola, G M Turino
Usage data is cumulative from August 2024 through August 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 115 | 2 |
52 | 7 | |
Scanned page | 460 | 1 |
Citation downloads | 60 | 0 |
Totals | 687 | 10 |
Total Views | 697 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.