Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2005
Work of breathing during nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: a comparison of bubble vs variable-flow devices.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liptsen Ellina, Aghai Zubair H, Pyon Kee H, Saslow Judy G, Nakhla Tarek, Long Jennifer, Steele Andrew M, Habib Robert H, Courtney Sherry E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare work of breathing and breathing asynchrony during bubble nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) vs variable-flow (VF)-NCPAP in premature infants.
STUDY DESIGN: We studied 18 premature infants of birth weight <1500 g who required NCPAP for mild respiratory distress. Each infant was studied on bubble and VF-NCPAP at 8, 6, 4, and 0 cm H2O. Tidal volumes were obtained by calibrated respiratory inductance plethysmography. Esophageal pressure estimated intrapleural pressure. Inspiratory and resistive work of breathing were calculated from pressure-volume data. Breathing asynchrony was assessed with phase angle. The results at all NCPAP levels were referenced to VF-NCPAP values at 8 cm H2O.
RESULTS: Provision of NCPAP with either device decreased inspiratory work of breathing, tidal volume, and minute ventilation relative to NCPAP of 0 cm H2O. Bubble NCPAP did not decrease resistive work of breathing relative to 0 cm H2O. Resistive work of breathing (p=0.01), respiratory rate (p<0.03), and phase angle (p=0.002) were all greater with bubble compared to VF-NCPAP.
CONCLUSION: The more labored and asynchronous breathing seen with bubble NCPAP may lead to higher failure rates over the long term than with VF-NCPAP.
STUDY DESIGN: We studied 18 premature infants of birth weight <1500 g who required NCPAP for mild respiratory distress. Each infant was studied on bubble and VF-NCPAP at 8, 6, 4, and 0 cm H2O. Tidal volumes were obtained by calibrated respiratory inductance plethysmography. Esophageal pressure estimated intrapleural pressure. Inspiratory and resistive work of breathing were calculated from pressure-volume data. Breathing asynchrony was assessed with phase angle. The results at all NCPAP levels were referenced to VF-NCPAP values at 8 cm H2O.
RESULTS: Provision of NCPAP with either device decreased inspiratory work of breathing, tidal volume, and minute ventilation relative to NCPAP of 0 cm H2O. Bubble NCPAP did not decrease resistive work of breathing relative to 0 cm H2O. Resistive work of breathing (p=0.01), respiratory rate (p<0.03), and phase angle (p=0.002) were all greater with bubble compared to VF-NCPAP.
CONCLUSION: The more labored and asynchronous breathing seen with bubble NCPAP may lead to higher failure rates over the long term than with VF-NCPAP.