4.6 Article

Respiratory inductance plethysmography calibration for pediatric upper airway obstruction: an animal model

期刊

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 75-83

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/pr.2014.144

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Child Health and Development, Bethesda, MD [1K23HL103785]
  2. Novartis Pharmaceutical, Basel, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine optimal methods of respiratory inductance plethysmography (RIP) flow calibration for application to pediatric postextubation upper airway obstruction. METHODS: We measured RIP, spirometry, and esophageal manometry in spontaneously breathing, intubated Rhesus monkeys with increasing inspiratory resistance. RIP calibration was based on: Delta mu V-ao approximate to M[Delta mu V-RC + K(Delta mu V-AB)] where K establishes the relationship between the uncalibrated rib cage (Delta mu V-RC) and abdominal (Delta mu V-AB) RIP signals. We calculated K during (i) iso-volume maneuvers during a negative inspiratory force (NIF), (ii) quantitative diagnostic calibration (QDC) during (a) tidal breathing, (b) continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and (c) increasing degrees of upper airway obstruction (UAO). We compared the calibrated RIP flow waveform to spirometry quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: Isovolume calibrated RIP flow tracings were more accurate (against spirometry) both quantitatively and qualitatively than those from QDC (P < 0.0001), with bigger differences as UAO worsened. Isovolume calibration yielded nearly identical clinical interpretation of inspiratory flow limitation as spirometry. CONCLUSION: In an animal model of pediatric UAO, isovolume calibrated RIP flow tracings are accurate against spirometry. QDC during tidal breathing yields poor RIP flow calibration, particularly as UAO worsens. Routine use of a NIF maneuver before extubation affords the opportunity to use RIP to study postextubation UAO in children.

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

4.6
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