Emilis Simeliunas

Mr. Emilis Simeliunas


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

13Years (2014-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
15 January 2021 in Journal of Clinical Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MFMascha O. Fiedler-Kalenka
Mascha O. Fiedler-Kalenka
ESEmilis Simeliunas
Emilis Simeliunas
BDB. Luise Deutsch
B. Luise Deutsch
DDDovile Diktanaite
Dovile Diktanaite
AHAlexander Harms
Alexander Harms
AKArmin Kalenka
Armin Kalenka
The effects of a moderately elevated intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) on lung mechanics in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have still not been fully analyzed. Moreover, the optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in elevated IAP and ARDS is unclear. In this paper, 18 pigs under general anesthesia received a double hit lung injury. After saline lung lavage and 2 h of injurious mechanical ventilation to induce an acute lung injury (ALI), an intra-abdominal balloon was filled until an IAP of 10 mmHg was generated. Animals were randomly assigned to one of three groups (group A = PEEP 5, B = PEEP 10 and C = PEEP 15 cmH2O) and ventilated for 6 h. We measured end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) per kg bodyweight, driving pressure (ΔP), transpulmonary pressure (ΔPL), static lung compliance (Cstat), oxygenation (P/F ratio) and cardiac index (CI). In group A, we found increases in ΔP (22 ± 1 vs. 28 ± 2 cmH2O; p = 0.006) and ΔPL (16 ± 1 vs. 22 ± 2 cmH2O; p = 0.007), with no change in EELV/kg (15 ± 1 vs. 14 ± 1 mL/kg) when comparing hours 0 and 6. In group B, there was no change in ΔP (26 ± 2 vs. 25 ± 2 cmH2O), ΔPL (19 ± 2 vs. 18 ± 2 cmH2O), Cstat (21 ± 3 vs. 21 ± 2 cmH2O/mL) or EELV/kg (12 ± 2 vs. 13 ± 3 mL/kg). ΔP and ΔPL were significantly lower after 6 h when comparing between group C and A (21 ± 1 vs. 28 ± 2 cmH2O; p = 0.020) and (14 ± 1 vs. 22 ± 2 cmH2O; p = 0.013)). The EELV/kg increased over time in group C (13 ± 1 vs. 19 ± 2 mL/kg; p = 0.034). The P/F ratio increased in all groups over time. CI decreased in groups B and C. The global lung injury score did not significantly differ between groups (A: 0.25 ± 0.05, B: 0.21 ± 0.02, C: 0.22 ± 0.03). In this model of ALI, elevated IAP, ΔP and ΔPL increased further over time in the group with a PEEP of 5 cmH2O applied over 6 h. This was not the case in the groups with a PEEP of 10 and 15 cmH2O. Although ΔP and ΔPL were significantly lower after 6 hours in group C compared to group A, we could not show significant differences in histological lung injury score.

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MFMascha O. Fiedler-Kalenka
Mascha O. Fiedler-Kalenka
DDDovile Diktanaite
Dovile Diktanaite
ESEmilis Simeliunas
Emilis Simeliunas
Maximilian PilzMaximilian Pilz
Maximilian Pilz
AKArmin Kalenka
Armin Kalenka
Background: The optimal level of positive end-expiratory pressure is still under debate. There are scare data examining the association of PEEP with transpulmonary pressure (TPP), end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and intraabdominal pressure in ventilated patients with and without ARDS. Methods: We analyzed lung mechanics in 3 patient groups: group A, patients with ARDS; group B, obese patients (body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2) and group C, a control group. Three levels of PEEP (5, 10, 15 cm H2O) were used to investigate the consequences for lung mechanics. Results: Fifty patients were included, 22 in group A, 18 in group B (BMI 38 ± 2 kg/m2) and 10 in group C. At baseline, oxygenation showed no differences between the groups. Driving pressure (ΔP) and transpulmonary pressure (ΔPL) was higher in group B than in groups A and C at a PEEP of 5 cm H2O (ΔP A: 15 ± 1, B: 18 ± 1, C: 14 ± 1 cm H2O; ΔPL A: 10 ± 1, B: 13 ± 1, C: 9 ± 0 cm H2O). Peak inspiratory pressure (Pinsp) rose in all groups as PEEP increased, but the resulting driving pressure and transpulmonary pressure were reduced, whereas EELV increased. Conclusion: Measuring EELV or TPP allows a personalized approach to lung-protective ventilation.

22 May 2024 in Medicina
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BSBenjamin Elia Seybold
Benjamin Elia Seybold
ADAnna M. Deutsch
Anna M. Deutsch
BDBarbara Luise Deutsch
Barbara Luise Deutsch
ESEmilis Simeliunas
Emilis Simeliunas
Markus A. WeigandMarkus A. Weigand
Markus A. Weigand
AKArmin Kalenka
Armin Kalenka
Background and Objectives: Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are common concerns in intensive care unit patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Although both conditions lead to impairment of global respiratory parameters, their underlying mechanisms differ substantially. Therefore, a separate assessment of the different respiratory compartments should reveal differences in respiratory mechanics. Materials and Methods: We prospectively investigated alterations in lung and chest wall mechanics in 18 mechanically ventilated pigs exposed to varying levels of intra-abdominal pressures (IAP) and ARDS. The animals were divided into three groups: group A (IAP 10 mmHg, no ARDS), B (IAP 20 mmHg, no ARDS), and C (IAP 10 mmHg, with ARDS). Following induction of IAP (by inflating an intra-abdominal balloon) and ARDS (by saline lung lavage and injurious ventilation), respiratory mechanics were monitored for six hours. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA to compare the alterations within each group. Results: After six hours of ventilation, end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) decreased across all groups, while airway and thoracic pressures increased. Significant differences were noted between group (B) and (C) regarding alterations in transpulmonary pressure (TPP) (2.7 ± 0.6 vs. 11.3 ± 2.1 cmH2O, p < 0.001), elastance of the lung (EL) (8.9 ± 1.9 vs. 29.9 ± 5.9 cmH2O/mL, p = 0.003), and elastance of the chest wall (ECW) (32.8 ± 3.2 vs. 4.4 ± 1.8 cmH2O/mL, p < 0.001). However, global respiratory parameters such as EELV/kg bodyweight (−6.1 ± 1.3 vs. −11.0 ± 2.5 mL/kg), driving pressure (12.5 ± 0.9 vs. 13.2 ± 2.3 cmH2O), and compliance of the respiratory system (−21.7 ± 2.8 vs. −19.5 ± 3.4 mL/cmH2O) did not show significant differences among the groups. Conclusions: Separate measurements of lung and chest wall mechanics in pigs with IAH or ARDS reveals significant differences in TPP, EL, and ECW, whereas global respiratory parameters do not differ significantly. Therefore, assessing the compartments of the respiratory system separately could aid in identifying the underlying cause of ARF.

25 July 2014 in Medicinos teorija ir praktika
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ESEmilis Simeliunas
Emilis Simeliunas
KBKristina Bliūdžiūtė
Kristina Bliūdžiūtė
LRLaurynas Rimsevicius
Laurynas Rimsevicius
MMMarius Miglinas
Marius Miglinas