4.7 Article

The deflation limb of the pressure-volume relationship in infants during high-frequency ventilation

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200502-299OC

关键词

high-frequency ventilation; impedance; infant; newborn; plethysmography; pressure-volume relationship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: The importance of applying high-frequency oscillatory ventilation with a high lung volume strategy in infants is well established. Currently, a lack of reliable methods for assessing lung volume limits clinicians' ability to achieve the optimum volume range. Objectives: To map the pressure-volume relationship of the lung during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in infants, to determine at what point ventilation is being applied clinically, and to describe the relationship between airway pressure, lung volume, and oxygenation. Methods: In 12 infants, a partial inflation limb and the deflation limb of the pressure-volume relationship were mapped using a quasi-static lung volume optimization maneuver. This involved stepwise airway pressure increments to total lung capacity, followed by decrements until the closing pressure of the lung was identified. Measurements and Main Results: Lung volume and oxygen saturation were recorded at each airway pressure. Lung volume was measured using respiratory inductive plethysmography. A distinct deflation limb could be mapped in each infant. Overall, oxygenation and lung volume were improved by applying ventilation on the deflation limb. Maximal lung volume and oxygenation occurred on the deflation limb at a mean airway pressure of 3 and 5 cm H2O below the airway pressure approximating total lung capacity, respectively. Conclusions: Using current ventilation strategies, all infants were being ventilated near the inflation limb. It is possible to delineate the deflation limb in infants receiving high-frequency oscillatory ventilation; in doing so, greater lung volume and oxygenation can be achieved, often at lower airway pressures.

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