Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2012
Evaluating intra-abdominal pressures in a porcine model of acute lung injury by using a wireless motility capsule.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Rauch Stefan, Johannes Amelie, Zollhöfer Bernd, Muellenbach Ralf M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intra-vesical pressure measurement as the reference standard for assessing intra-abdominal pressures is mainly indirect and discontinuous. We therefore evaluated a motility capsule for continuous intra-abdominal pressure measurement in an animal model with a high probability for capillary leakage and intestinal edema.
MATERIAL/METHODS: Motility capsules were inserted into the stomachs of 8 anesthetized and ventilated pigs. Stomach pH, pressure, and temperature data were wirelessly transmitted to a recorder attached to each animal's abdomen. Intra-gastric pressures measured by the capsule were compared to intra-vesical pressures measured by a pressure transducer system.
RESULTS: The intra-abdominal pressures ranged from 3 to 15 mmHg (7.8 ± 2.4 mmHg [mean ± SD]) measured via the bladder. The capsule pressure recordings ranged from 1 to 3 mmHg (1.7 ± 0.5 mmHg [mean ± SD]). Bland-Altman analysis revealed an unacceptable bias between the 2 methods. The test bias was 6.2 (± 1.4) mmHg and the limits of agreement were from 3.3 to 8.9 mmHg.
CONCLUSIONS: Pressures in the stomach as measured by motility capsule underestimated the intra-vesical pressures. Discrepancies between gastric and intra-vesical pressures could be caused by gastric dilatation or different position of the 2 devices to the zero reference point.
MATERIAL/METHODS: Motility capsules were inserted into the stomachs of 8 anesthetized and ventilated pigs. Stomach pH, pressure, and temperature data were wirelessly transmitted to a recorder attached to each animal's abdomen. Intra-gastric pressures measured by the capsule were compared to intra-vesical pressures measured by a pressure transducer system.
RESULTS: The intra-abdominal pressures ranged from 3 to 15 mmHg (7.8 ± 2.4 mmHg [mean ± SD]) measured via the bladder. The capsule pressure recordings ranged from 1 to 3 mmHg (1.7 ± 0.5 mmHg [mean ± SD]). Bland-Altman analysis revealed an unacceptable bias between the 2 methods. The test bias was 6.2 (± 1.4) mmHg and the limits of agreement were from 3.3 to 8.9 mmHg.
CONCLUSIONS: Pressures in the stomach as measured by motility capsule underestimated the intra-vesical pressures. Discrepancies between gastric and intra-vesical pressures could be caused by gastric dilatation or different position of the 2 devices to the zero reference point.