4.7 Article

Responding to Compliance Changes in a Lung Model During Manual Ventilation: Perhaps Volume, Rather Than Pressure, Should be Displayed

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 123, 期 3, 页码 e465-e470

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2008-2012

关键词

lung compliance; neonatal resuscitation; ventilation

资金

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics
  2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Virginia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. The standard technique for positive-pressure ventilation is to regulate the breath size by varying the pressure applied to the bag. Investigators have argued that consistency of peak inspiratory pressure is important. However, research shows that excessive tidal volume delivered with excessive pressure injures preterm lungs, which suggests that inspiratory pressure should be varied during times of changing compliance, such as resuscitation of newborns or treatment after surfactant delivery. METHODS. We modified a computerized lung model (ASL5000 [IngMar Medical, Pittsburgh, PA]) to simulate the functional residual capacity of a 3-kg neonate with apnea and programmed it to change compliance during ventilation. Forty-five professionals were blinded to randomized compliance changes while using a flow-inflating bag, a self-inflating bag, and a T-piece resuscitator. We instructed subjects to maintain a constant inflation volume, first while blinded to delivered volume and then with volume displayed, with all 3 devices. RESULTS. Subjects adapted to compliance changes by adjusting inflation pressure more effectively when delivered volume was displayed. When only pressure was displayed, sensing of compliance changes occurred only with the self-inflating bag. When volume was displayed, adjustments to compliance changes occurred with all 3 devices, although the self-inflating bag was superior. CONCLUSIONS. In this lung model, volume display permitted far better detection of display of only pressure. Devices for administration of positive-pressure ventilation than pressure. Pediatrics 2009; 123: e465-e470

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

4.7
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