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: [The effect of positive pressure ventilation combined with diaphragm pacing on respiratory mechanics in patients with respiratory failure].
    Author: Deng YJ, Ji YL, Chen LP, Jin Q.
    Journal: Zhongguo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue; 2011 Apr; 23(4):213-5. PubMed ID: 21473822.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To observe the effects of combining positive pressure ventilation with diaphragm pacing on respiratory mechanics in patients with respiratory failure. METHODS: Twenty patients with central respiratory failure were studied with cohorts. The effects on respiratory mechanics were respectively observed in patients in control group, in whom ventilation by positive pressure only, and patients in experimental group in whom ventilation was instituted by combining positive pressure ventilation with diaphragm pacing. RESULTS: Compared with control group, mean airway pressure (Paw, cm H(2)O, 1 cm H(2)O= 0.098 kPa) and plateau pressure (Pplat, cm H(2)O) were significantly decreased in experimental group (Paw: 6.1±1.3 vs. 7.3±1.8; Pplat: 10.4±2.5 vs. 12.1±2.6, both P<0.05), while the negative value of peak esophageal pressure (P(PEAK ES) , cm H(2)O), the negative value of the difference between peak and basic esophageal pressure (dP(ES), cm H(2)O), transpulmonary pressure at end of inspiration hold (Ptp plat, cm H(2)O ), static compliance (Cst, ml/cm H(2)O) were significantly increased in experimental group (P(PEAK ES): -8.3± 1.9 vs. -3.2±1.4; dP(ES) : -11.2±2.6 vs. -8.2±2.2; Ptp plat: 23.6±3.8 vs. 15.6±3.1; Cst: 52.7±8.2 vs. 48.3±7.2, all P<0.05). No differences were found in airway resistance (Raw, cm H(2)O×L(-1) ×s(-1) ) and lung resistance (R(L), cm H(2)O×L(-1) ×s(-1) ) between experimental group and control group (Raw: 2.1±0.5 vs. 2.3±0.4; R(L): 2.9±0.6 vs. 3.1±0.5, both P>0.05). Work of breath by patient (WOBp, J/L) was significantly increased and work of breath by ventilator (WOBv, J/L) was significantly decreased in experimental group compared with control group (WOBp: 0.18±0.03 vs. 0; WOBv: 0.31±0.07 vs. 0.53±0.11, both P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with positive pressure ventilation , positive pressure ventilation combined with diaphragm pacing can decrease the Paw, increase intrathoracic negative pressure, transpulmonary pressure, and Cst, and decrease WOBv, while there is no effect on Raw and R(L).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]