4.6 Article

Influence of ventilatory parameters on the concentration of exhaled volatile organic compounds in mechanically ventilated patients

期刊

ANALYST
卷 148, 期 17, 页码 4020-4029

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d3an00786c

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analysis of VOC within exhaled breath is influenced by various factors. This study investigated the effects of respiratory rate and tidal volume on exhaled VOCs in mechanically ventilated patients. It was found that respiratory rate had the greatest impact on isoprene levels, while other compounds were not influenced by these parameters. These findings provide valuable guidelines for breath sampling protocols in awake patients.
Analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOC) within exhaled breath is subject to numerous sources of methodological and physiological variability. Whilst breathing pattern is expected to influence the concentrations of selected exhaled VOCs, it remains challenging to investigate respiratory rate and depth accurately in awake subjects. Online breath sampling was performed in 20 mechanically ventilated patients using proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry (PTR-ToF-MS). The effect of variation in respiratory rate (RR) and tidal volume (TV) on the VOC release profiles was examined. A panel of nineteen VOCs were selected, including isoprene, acetone, propofol, volatile aldehydes, acids and phenols. Variation in RR had the greatest influence on exhaled isoprene levels, with maximum and average concentrations being inversely correlated with RR. Variations in RR had a statistically significant impact on acetone, C3-C7 linear aldehydes and acetic acid. In comparison, phenols (including propofol), C8-C10 aldehydes and C3-C6 carboxylic acids were not influenced by RR. Isoprene was the only compound to be influenced by variation in TV. These findings, obtained under controlled conditions, provide useful guidelines for the optimisation of breath sampling protocols to be applied on awake patients.

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