4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Reproducibility of regional lung ventilation distribution determined by electrical impedance tomography during mechanical ventilation

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 S261-S267

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/28/7/S19

关键词

EIT; electrical impedance tomography; lung impedance; regional lung ventilation; positive end-expiratory pressure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) has the potential to become a new tool for bedside monitoring of regional lung ventilation. The aim of our study was to assess the reproducibility of regional lung ventilation distribution determined by EIT during mechanical ventilation under identical ventilator settings. The experiments were performed on 10 anaesthetized supine pigs ventilated in a volume-controlled mode. EIT measurements were performed with the Goe-MF II device (Viasys Healthcare, Hochberg, Germany) during repeated changes in positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) from 0 to 10 cm H2O. Regional lung ventilation was determined in the right and left hemithorax as well as in 64 regions of interest evenly distributed over each chest side in the ventrodorsal direction. Ventilation distributions in both lungs were visualized as ventrodorsal ventilation profiles and shifts in ventilation distribution quantified in terms of centres of ventilation in relation to the chest diameter. The proportion of the right lung on total ventilation in the chest cross-section was 0.54 +/- 0.04 and remained unaffected by repetitive PEEP changes. Initial PEEP increase resulted in a redistribution of ventilation towards dorsal lung regions with a shift of the centre of ventilation from 45 +/- 3% to 49 +/- 3% of the chest diameter in the right and from 47 +/- 2% to 50 +/- 2% in the left hemithorax. Excellent reproducibility of the results in the individual regions of interest with almost identical patterns of ventilation distribution was found during repeated PEEP changes.

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

4.5
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