3.9 Article

Trendelenburg chest optimization prolongs spontaneous breathing trials in ventilator-dependent patients with low cervical spinal cord injury

期刊

出版社

JOURNAL REHAB RES & DEV
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2009.07.0099

关键词

alveolar minute volume; body positioning; bronchodilation; carbon dioxide elimination; cardiac output; cervical spinal cord injury; chest optimization; chest physiotherapy; evidence-based; lung hyperinflation; multimodal; noninvasive cardiac output monitoring; rapid shallow breathing index; rehabilitation; spontaneous breathing trial; sputum mobilization; static chest compliance; supine; tetraplegia; Trendelenburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chest optimization, an evidence-based protocol-guided multimodal chest physiotherapy consisting of body positioning, sputum mobilization, bronchodilation, and lung hyperinflation, may be routinely administered to ventilator-dependent patients with low cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) for improving pulmonary functional outcomes that facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation. We undertook this study to determine whether position-specific chest optimization was associated with changes in spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) duration. Cardiac output (CO), alveolar minute volume (MValv), carbon dioxide elimination (VCO2), and static chest compliance (Cst) were measured during chest optimization; then MValv and rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) were measured during SBT. Study participants (N = 12) were clinically stable ventilator-dependent patients with low CSCI. Trendelenburg chest optimization (TCO) was associated with significant increases in SBT (p < 0.001), CO, (p < 0.001), MValv (p < 0.003), VCO2 (p < 0.001); and Cst (p < 0.002). SBT following TCO was associated with significant increases in MValv (p < 0.03) and RSBI (p < 0.002). These preliminary findings suggest the importance of proper recumbent body positioning during evidence-based, protocol-guided multimodal chest physiotherapy for ventilator-dependent patients with low CSCI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据