These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Flow dependence and repeatability of interrupter resistance in lower airways and nose.
    Author: Eiser N, Phillips C, Wooler P, Pride NB, Doré CJ.
    Journal: Physiol Meas; 2005 Jun; 26(3):143-56. PubMed ID: 15798291.
    Abstract:
    The interrupter technique, the simplest method for measuring airflow resistance (R(int)) is particularly valuable under field conditions. We investigate whether during tidal breathing, variations in the flow at which interruption occurs contribute to variability of results. Using a portable device with mouthpiece, sets of 10 measurements of R(int) (R(int,mo)) were made in inspiration and expiration at 0.05 l s(-1) intervals from 0.1 up to 0.9 l s(-1) flow in 22 normal adults, 11 children (5-9 years) and 12 COPD patients. R(int) was also measured via nasal-mask in normal adults (R(int,na)). Intra-subject coefficient of variation was obtained at each flow and flow-dependence of R(int) was assessed. In normal subjects, R(int)-flow relationships were consistent, with a narrow range of absolute values. R(int,na), but not R(int,mo), rose with increasing flow, especially >0.4 l s(-1). Repeatability was poor at flows <0.3 l s(-1) but improved with increasing flow and was better in inspiration than expiration. In children, repeatability was better than in adults and R(int,mo) was not flow dependent at < or =0.4 l s(-1). By contrast, in COPD patients repeatability was less good and R(int,mo) increased with increasing flows. R(int,mo) and R(int,na) should be measured at fixed inspiratory flows. The best signal-to-noise ratios were obtained at 0.4 l s(-1) for R(int) in normal adults and COPD patients and at 0.3 l s(-1) in children.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]