4.5 Article

Plethysmographic estimation of thoracic gas volume in apneic mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 101, 期 2, 页码 454-459

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00011.2006

关键词

functional residual capacity; lung volume; Boyle's law

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrical stimulation of intercostal muscles was employed to measure thoracic gas volume (TGV) during airway occlusion in the absence of respiratory effort at different levels of lung inflation. In 15 tracheostomized and mechanically ventilated CBA/Ca mice, the value of TGV obtained from the spontaneous breathing effort available in the early phase of the experiments (TGVsp) was compared with those resulting from muscle stimulation (TGVst) at transrespiratory pressures of 0, 10, and 20 cmH(2)O. A very strong correlation (r(2) = 0.97) was found, although with a systematically (similar to 16%) higher estimation of TGVst relative to TGVsp, attributable to the different durations of the stimulated (similar to 50 ms) and spontaneous (similar to 200 ms) contractions. Measurements of TGVst before and after injections of 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 ml of nitrogen into the lungs in six mice resulted in good agreement between the change in TGVst and the injected volume (r(2) = 0.98). In four mice, TGVsp and TGVst were compared at end expiration with air or a helium-oxygen mixture to confirm the validity of isothermal compression in the alveolar gas. The TGVst values measured at zero transrespiratory pressure in all CBA/Ca mice [0.29 +/- 0.05 (SD) ml] and in C57BL/6 (N = 6; 0.34 +/- 0.08 ml) and BALB/c (N = 6; 0.28 +/- 0.06 ml) mice were in agreement with functional residual capacity values from previous studies in which different techniques were used. This method is particularly useful when TGV is to be determined in the absence of breathing activity, when it must be known at any level of lung inflation or under non-steady-state conditions, such as during pharmaceutical interventions.

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