|
|
||||||||
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
REPLY: We would first like to thank Dr. Huang for his interest in our recent publication (4) and appreciate the opportunity to respond to his comments (1).
Although in the final version of our paper we have only included our results of dynamic lung compliance, both dynamic compliance and static compliance using pressure-volumes curves were measured in this study. Both measurements of compliance showed identical trends, displaying that TIMP-3 null mice had a rapid increase in lung compliance in response to a septic insult that was prevented in the absence of alveolar macrophages. Since including both of these results seemed repetitive, only dynamic compliance was included in the published version. This decision was made based on the facts that 1) traditional pressure-volume curves of TIMP-3 null mice exposed to sepsis (cecal ligation and perforation-induced sepsis and LPS) had been previously published in the two preceding studies (2, 3) and therefore is well established and 2) dynamic compliance is more clinically and physiologically relevant since it assesses lung elastic and recoil properties during normal tidal breathing. Since the use of both the flexiVent and the measurement of dynamic compliance to assess the lung recoil properties are well established, we believe that even in the absence of static compliance data, our results remain convincing and their conclusions well-founded.
FOOTNOTES
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: R. A. W. Veldhuizen, Lawson Health Research Institute F4-117, 268 Grosvenor St., London, ON, Canada N6A 4V2 (e-mail: rveldhui{at}uwo.ca)
REFERENCES
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |