4.7 Article Data Paper

Airflow and dynamic circumference of abdomen and thorax for adults at varied continuous positive airway pressure ventilation settings and breath rates

Journal

SCIENTIFIC DATA
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41597-023-02326-5

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a commonly used respiratory therapy that assists breathing and prevents airway collapse. The setting of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is debated and can result in complications. Developing model-based methods for personalized CPAP therapy requires clinical data of lung/CPAP interactions.
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation is a commonly prescribed respiratory therapy providing positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to assist breathing and prevent airway collapse. Setting PEEP is highly debated and it is thus primarily titrated based on symptoms of excessive or insufficient support. However, titration periods are clinician intensive and can result in barotrauma or under-oxygenation during the process. Developing model-based methods to more efficiently personalise CPAP therapy based on patient-specific response requires clinical data of lung/CPAP interactions. To this end, a trial was conducted to establish a dataset of healthy subjects lung/CPAP interaction. Pressure, flow, and tidal volume were recorded alongside secondary measures of dynamic chest and abdominal circumference, to better validate model outcomes and assess breathing modes, muscular recruitment, and effort. N = 30 subjects (15 male; 15 female) were included. Self-reported asthmatics and smokers/vapers were included, offering a preliminary assessment of any potential differences in response to CPAP from lung stiffness changes in these scenarios. Additional demographics associated with lung function (sex, age, height, and weight) were also recorded.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available