Molecular biology of the blood-brain and the blood-cerebrospinal fluid barriers: similarities and differences

Efficient processing of information by the central nervous system (CNS) represents an important evolutionary advantage. Thus, homeostatic mechanisms have developed that provide appropriate circumstances for neuronal signaling, including a highly controlled and stable microenvironment. To provide such a milieu for neurons, extracellular fluids of the CNS are separated from the changeable environment of blood at three major interfaces: at the brain capillaries by the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which is localized at the level of the endothelial cells and separates brain interstitial fluid (ISF) from blood; at the epithelial layer of four choroid plexuses, the blood-cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) barrier (BCSFB), which separates CSF from the CP ISF, and at the arachnoid barrier. The two barriers that represent the largest interface between blood and brain extracellular fluids, the BBB and the BCSFB, prevent the free paracellular diffusion of polar molecules by complex morphological features, including tight junctions (TJs) that interconnect the endothelial and epithelial cells, respectively. The first part of this review focuses on the molecular biology of TJs and adherens junctions in the brain capillary endothelial cells and in the CP epithelial cells. However, normal function of the CNS depends on a constant supply of essential molecules, like glucose and amino acids from the blood, exchange of electrolytes between brain extracellular fluids and blood, as well as on efficient removal of metabolic waste products and excess neurotransmitters from the brain ISF. Therefore, a number of specific transport proteins are expressed in brain capillary endothelial cells and CP epithelial cells that provide transport of nutrients and ions into the CNS and removal of waste products and ions from the CSF. The second part of this review concentrates on the molecular biology of various solute carrier (SLC) transport proteins at those two barriers and underlines differences in their expression between the two barriers. Also, many blood-borne molecules and xenobiotics can diffuse into brain ISF and then into neuronal membranes due to their physicochemical properties. Entry of these compounds could be detrimental for neural transmission and signalling. Thus, BBB and BCSFB express transport proteins that actively restrict entry of lipophilic and amphipathic substances from blood and/or remove those molecules from the brain extracellular fluids. The third part of this review concentrates on the molecular biology of ATP-binding cassette (ABC)-transporters and those SLC transporters that are involved in efflux transport of xenobiotics, their expression at the BBB and BCSFB and differences in expression in the two major blood-brain interfaces. In addition, transport and diffusion of ions by the BBB and CP epithelium are involved in the formation of fluid, the ISF and CSF, respectively, so the last part of this review discusses molecular biology of ion transporters/exchangers and ion channels in the brain endothelial and CP epithelial cells

Identifying associations between diabetes and acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an analysis of the LUNG SAFE database

Background: Diabetes mellitus is a common co-existing disease in the critically ill. Diabetes mellitus may reduce the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but data from previous studies are conflicting. The objective of this study was to evaluate associations between pre-existing diabetes mellitus and ARDS in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Methods: An ancillary analysis of a global, multi-centre prospective observational study (LUNG SAFE) was undertaken. LUNG SAFE evaluated all patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) over a 4-week period, that required mechanical ventilation and met AHRF criteria. Patients who had their AHRF fully explained by cardiac failure were excluded. Important clinical characteristics were included in a stepwise selection approach (forward and backward selection combined with a significance level of 0.05) to identify a set of independent variables associated with having ARDS at any time, developing ARDS (defined as ARDS occurring after day 2 from meeting AHRF criteria) and with hospital mortality. Furthermore, propensity score analysis was undertaken to account for the differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without diabetes mellitus, and the association between diabetes mellitus and outcomes of interest was assessed on matched samples. Results: Of the 4107 patients with AHRF included in this study, 3022 (73.6%) patients fulfilled ARDS criteria at admission or developed ARDS during their ICU stay. Diabetes mellitus was a pre-existing co-morbidity in 913 patients (22.2% of patients with AHRF). In multivariable analysis, there was no association between diabetes mellitus and having ARDS (OR 0.93 (0.78-1.11); p = 0.39), developing ARDS late (OR 0.79 (0.54-1.15); p = 0.22), or hospital mortality in patients with ARDS (1.15 (0.93-1.42); p = 0.19). In a matched sample of patients, there was no association between diabetes mellitus and outcomes of interest. Conclusions: In a large, global observational study of patients with AHRF, no association was found between diabetes mellitus and having ARDS, developing ARDS, or outcomes from ARDS. Trial registration: NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013

Spontaneous Breathing in Early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Insights From the Large Observational Study to UNderstand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory FailurE Study

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome with or without spontaneous breathing and to investigate whether the effects of spontaneous breathing on outcome depend on acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. DESIGN: Planned secondary analysis of a prospective, observational, multicentre cohort study. SETTING: International sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation and available data for the mode of mechanical ventilation and respiratory rate for the 2 first days. INTERVENTIONS: Analysis of patients with and without spontaneous breathing, defined by the mode of mechanical ventilation and by actual respiratory rate compared with set respiratory rate during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Spontaneous breathing was present in 67% of patients with mild acute respiratory distress syndrome, 58% of patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 46% of patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Patients with spontaneous breathing were older and had lower acute respiratory distress syndrome severity, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, ICU and hospital mortality, and were less likely to be diagnosed with acute respiratory distress syndrome by clinicians. In adjusted analysis, spontaneous breathing during the first 2 days was not associated with an effect on ICU or hospital mortality (33% vs 37%; odds ratio, 1.18 [0.92-1.51]; p = 0.19 and 37% vs 41%; odds ratio, 1.18 [0.93-1.50]; p = 0.196, respectively ). Spontaneous breathing was associated with increased ventilator-free days (13 [0-22] vs 8 [0-20]; p = 0.014) and shorter duration of ICU stay (11 [6-20] vs 12 [7-22]; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous breathing is common in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Spontaneous breathing is not associated with worse outcomes and may hasten liberation from the ventilator and from ICU. Although these results support the use of spontaneous breathing in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome independent of acute respiratory distress syndrome severity, the use of controlled ventilation indicates a bias toward use in patients with higher disease severity. In addition, because the lack of reliable data on inspiratory effort in our study, prospective studies incorporating the magnitude of inspiratory effort and adjusting for all potential severity confounders are required

Effect of sibutramine on cardiovascular outcomes in overweight and obese subjects.

BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of sibutramine treatment on the rates of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death among subjects at high cardiovascular risk have not been established. METHODS: We enrolled in our study 10,744 overweight or obese subjects, 55 years of age or older, with preexisting cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or both to assess the cardiovascular consequences of weight management with and without sibutramine in subjects at high risk for cardiovascular events. All the subjects received sibutramine in addition to participating in a weight-management program during a 6-week, single-blind, lead-in period, after which 9804 subjects underwent random assignment in a double-blind fashion to sibutramine (4906 subjects) or placebo (4898 subjects). The primary end point was the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a primary outcome event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, or cardiovascular death). RESULTS: The mean duration of treatment was 3.4 years. The mean weight loss during the lead-in period was 2.6 kg; after randomization, the subjects in the sibutramine group achieved and maintained further weight reduction (mean, 1.7 kg). The mean blood pressure decreased in both groups, with greater reductions in the placebo group than in the sibutramine group (mean difference, 1.2/1.4 mm Hg). The risk of a primary outcome event was 11.4% in the sibutramine group as compared with 10.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.31; P=0.02). The rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke were 4.1% and 2.6% in the sibutramine group and 3.2% and 1.9% in the placebo group, respectively (hazard ratio for nonfatal myocardial infarction, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.57; P=0.02; hazard ratio for nonfatal stroke, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.77; P=0.03). The rates of cardiovascular death and death from any cause were not increased. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with preexisting cardiovascular conditions who were receiving long-term sibutramine treatment had an increased risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke but not of cardiovascular death or death from any cause. (Funded by Abbott; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00234832.

Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: Why They Have Failed and How to Fix Them

Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders have been in use in hospitals nationwide for over 20 years. Nonetheless, as currently implemented, they fail to adequately fulfill their two intended purposes—to support patient autonomy and to prevent non-beneficial interventions. These failures lead to serious consequences. Patients are deprived of the opportunity to make informed decisions regarding resuscitation, and CPR is performed on patients who would have wanted it withheld or are harmed by the procedure. This article highlights the persistent problems with today’s use of inpatient DNR orders, i.e., DNR discussions do not occur frequently enough and occur too late in the course of patients’ illnesses to allow their participation in resuscitation decisions. Furthermore, many physicians fail to provide adequate information to allow patients or surrogates to make informed decisions and inappropriately extrapolate DNR orders to limit other treatments. Because these failings are primarily due to systemic factors that result in deficient physician behaviors, we propose strategies to target these factors including changing the hospital culture, reforming hospital policies on DNR discussions, mandating provider communication skills training, and using financial incentives. These strategies could help overcome existing barriers to proper DNR discussions and align the use of DNR orders closer to their intended purposes of supporting patient self-determination and avoiding non-beneficial interventions at the end of life