Respiratory care · 2015
Effect of Very-High-Flow Nasal Therapy on Airway Pressure and End-Expiratory Lung Impedance in Healthy Volunteers.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Parke Rachael L, Bloch Andreas, McGuinness Shay P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Previous research has demonstrated a positive linear correlation between flow delivered and airway pressure generated by high-flow nasal therapy. Current practice is to use flows over a range of 30-60 L/min; however, it is technically possible to apply higher flows. In this study, airway pressure measurements and electrical impedance tomography were used to assess the relationship between flows of up to 100 L/min and changes in lung physiology.
METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers were enrolled into this study. A high-flow nasal system capable of delivering a flow of 100 L/min was purpose-built using 2 Optiflow systems. Airway pressure was measured via the nasopharynx, and cumulative changes in end-expiratory lung impedance were recorded using the PulmoVista 500 system at gas flows of 30-100 L/min in increments of 10 L/min.
RESULTS: The mean age of study participants was 31 (range 22-44) y, the mean ± SD height was 171.8 ± 7.5 cm, the mean ± SD weight was 69.7 ± 10 kg, and 47% were males. Flows ranged from 30 to 100 L/min with resulting mean ± SD airway pressures of 2.7 ± 0.7 to 11.9 ± 2.7 cm H2O. A cumulative and linear increase in end-expiratory lung impedance was observed with increasing flows, as well as a decrease in breathing frequency.
CONCLUSIONS: Measured airway pressure and lung impedance increased linearly with increased gas flow. Observed airway pressures were in the range used clinically with face-mask noninvasive ventilation. Developments in delivery systems may result in this therapy being an acceptable alternative to face-mask noninvasive ventilation.
METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers were enrolled into this study. A high-flow nasal system capable of delivering a flow of 100 L/min was purpose-built using 2 Optiflow systems. Airway pressure was measured via the nasopharynx, and cumulative changes in end-expiratory lung impedance were recorded using the PulmoVista 500 system at gas flows of 30-100 L/min in increments of 10 L/min.
RESULTS: The mean age of study participants was 31 (range 22-44) y, the mean ± SD height was 171.8 ± 7.5 cm, the mean ± SD weight was 69.7 ± 10 kg, and 47% were males. Flows ranged from 30 to 100 L/min with resulting mean ± SD airway pressures of 2.7 ± 0.7 to 11.9 ± 2.7 cm H2O. A cumulative and linear increase in end-expiratory lung impedance was observed with increasing flows, as well as a decrease in breathing frequency.
CONCLUSIONS: Measured airway pressure and lung impedance increased linearly with increased gas flow. Observed airway pressures were in the range used clinically with face-mask noninvasive ventilation. Developments in delivery systems may result in this therapy being an acceptable alternative to face-mask noninvasive ventilation.