4.7 Article

Effect of ventilatory drive on carbon dioxide sensitivity below eupnea during sleep

期刊

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.2110041

关键词

sleep apnea; chemoreceptors; hyperventilation; hypoventilation; apneic/hypopneic thresholds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We determined the effects of changing ventilatory stimuli on the hypocapnia-induced apneic and hypopneic thresholds in sleeping dogs. End-tidal carbon dioxide pressure (PETCO2) was gradually reduced during non-rapid eye movement sleep by increasing tidal volume with pressure support mechanical ventilation, causing a reduction in diaphragm electromyogram amplitude until apnea/periodic breathing occurred. We used the reduction in PETCO2 below spontaneous breathing required to produce apnea (DeltaPET(CO2)) as an index of the susceptibility to apnea. DeltaPET(CO2) was -5 mm Hg in control animals and changed in proportion to background ventilatory drive, increasing with metabolic acidosis (-6.7 mm Hg) and nonhypoxic peripheral chemoreceptor stimulation (almitrine; -5.9 mm Hg) and decreasing with metabolic alkalosis (-3.7 mm Hg). Hypoxia was the exception; DeltaPET(CO2) narrowed (-4.1 mm Hg) despite the accompanying hyperventilation. Thus, hyperventilation and hypocapnia, per se, widened the DeltaPET(CO2) thereby protecting against apnea and hypopnea, whereas reduced ventilatory drive and hypoventilation narrowed the DeltaPET(CO2) and increased the susceptibility to apnea. Hypoxia sensitized the ventilatory responsiveness to CO2 below eupnea and narrowed the DeltaPET(CO2); this effect of hypoxia was not attributable to an imbalance between peripheral and central chemoreceptor stimulation, per se. We conclude that the DeltaPET(CO2) and the ventilatory sensitivity to CO2 between eupnea and the apneic threshold are changeable in the face of variations in the magnitude, direction, and/or type of ventilatory stimulus, thereby altering the susceptibility for apnea, hypopnea, and periodic breathing in sleep.

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