4.5 Article

Transpulmonary pressures and lung mechanics with glossopharyngeal insufflation and exsufflation beyond normal lung volumes in competitive breath-hold divers

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 102, 期 3, 页码 841-846

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00749.2006

关键词

esophageal balloon; barotrauma; pneumomediastinum; chest wall; elastic recoil pressure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Throughout life, most mammals breathe between maximal and minimal lung volumes determined by respiratory mechanics and muscle strength. In contrast, competitive breath-hold divers exceed these limits when they employ glossopharyngeal insufflation (GI) before a dive to increase lung gas volume (providing additional oxygen and intrapulmonary gas to prevent dangerous chest compression at depths recently greater than 100 m) and glossopharyngeal exsufflation (GE) during descent to draw air from compressed lungs into the pharynx for middle ear pressure equalization. To explore the mechanical effects of these maneuvers on the respiratory system, we measured lung volumes by helium dilution with spirometry and computed tomography and estimated transpulmonary pressures using an esophageal balloon after GI and GE in four competitive breath-hold divers. Maximal lung volume was increased after GI by 0.13-2.84 liters, resulting in volumes 1.5-7.9 SD above predicted values. The amount of gas in the lungs after GI increased by 0.59-4.16 liters, largely due to elevated intrapulmonary pressures of 52-109cmH(2)O. The transpulmonary pressures increased after GI to values ranging from 43 to 80 cmH(2)O, 1.6-2.9 times the expected values at total lung capacity. After GE, lung volumes were reduced by 0.09-0.44 liters, and the corresponding transpulmonary pressures decreased to -15 to -31 cmH(2)O, suggesting closure of intrapulmonary airways. We conclude that the lungs of some healthy individuals are able to withstand repeated inflation to transpulmonary pressures far greater than those to which they would normally be exposed.

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