| Literature DB >> 16146572 |
F Sériès1, E Vérin, T Similowski.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The forces developed during inspiration play a key role in determining upper airway stability and the occurrence of nocturnal breathing disorders. Phrenic nerve stimulation applied during wakefulness is a unique tool to assess Upper airway dynamic properties and to measure the overall mechanical effects of the inspiratory process on UA stability.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2005 PMID: 16146572 PMCID: PMC1236961 DOI: 10.1186/1465-9921-6-99
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Respir Res ISSN: 1465-9921
Figure 1Example of the changes in inspiratory flow and pharyngeal andesophageal pressures in response to PNS-induced diaphragm twitch applied during expiration and inspiration in a representative normal subject. Time 0 indicates the application of the twitch. I max and I min stand respectively for the maximal and minimal flow values reached during the twitch. Pphar lim indicates the pharyngeal pressure value corresponding to Imax. Peso peak indicates the driving pressure corresponding to I min. See text for abbreviations.
Anthropomorphic and polysomnographic characteristics of participating subjects. BMI: body mass index, NC: neck circumference, AHI: apnea + hypopnea index. Mean ± SEM.
| Normal Subjects (n = 10) | OSA Subjects (n = 11) | p | |
| Age (y) | 50 ± 1 | 50 ± 2 | 0.9 |
| BMI (Kg.m-2) | 27.2 ± 1.1 | 26.7 ± 1.2 | 0.8 |
| NC (cm) | 39.6 ± 0.9 | 40.5 ± 0.8 | 0.6 |
| Pharyngeal resistance at 0.4 L.s-1 (cm H2O.L-1.s) | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 3.9 ± 0.7 | 0.3 |
| Peak flow pharyngeal resistance (cm H2O.L-1.s) | 4.4 ± 0.8 | 3.8 ± 0.7 | 0.2 |
| AHI (n/h) | 4.8 ± 1.0 | 29.4 ± 2.2 | 10-4 |
Flow and pressure values obtained in response to 100% intensity PNS applied during expiration and inspiration in normals and OSA subjects. *: significant difference between inspiratory and expiratory values in a given group. Mean ± SEM.
| Expiratory | Inspiratory | |||
| Normal Subjects | OSA Subjects | Normal Subjects | OSA Subjects | |
| 716 ± 36 | 739 ± 51 | 990 ± 42 * | 1038 ± 58 * | |
| Peso peak at 100% stimulation I (cm H2O) | -17.6 ± 1.8 | -14.0 ± 2.0 | -21.1 ± 1.0 * | -17.7 ± 1.9 * |
| Pphar peak at 100% stimulation I (cm H2O) | -11.2 ± 2.2 | -11.1 ± 2.1 | -15.9 ± 1.5 * | -14.7 ± 1.4 * |
| R Phar 400 ml/s (cm H2O.ml-1.s) | 9.0 ± 0.7 | 9.5 ± 0.9 | 10.5 ± 1.3 | 8.5 ± 0.9 |
| R Phar | 9.2 ± 0.8 | 11.1 ± 1.3 | 10.2 ± 0.9 | 8.4 ± 0.7 |
| 742 ± 248 | 752 ± 352 | 981 ± 297 * | 1014 ± 348 * | |
| Pphar lim (cm H2O) | -8.4 ± 4.2 | -7.2 ± 3.3 | -12.5 ± 4.1 * | -9.6 ± 3.6 * |
| Δ | 234 ± 26 | 256 ± 37 | 258 ± 35 | 234 ± 24 |
| % twitches with FL | 76.6 ± 3.4 | 79.0 ± 4.4 | 75.0 ± 3.5 | 84.4 ± 4.1 |
Figure 2Plot of the flow/pharyngeal pressure relationships obtained with data presented in Figure 1. The flow-limited nature of the twitch-induced flow is clearly demonstrated by the flow drop associated with the pharyngeal pressure decrease once Pphar lim and the corresponding I max have been reached. A clear difference in the flow/pressure curves can be seen between the expiratory and inspiratory twitches.
Figure 3k1/k2 ratios for expiratory and inspiratory twitches in the normal and OSA groups. There was no difference between the two groups for expiratory twitches while the ratio decreased significantly during inspiratory twitches in normals and increased in OSA subjects. Boxes identify the 25 to 75 th percentiles of the data with the median value indicated. Horizontal lines outside the boxes depict the 10 to 90 th percentiles. Closed circles represent outliers. *: significant difference between inspiratory and expiratory values.
Figure 4Correlation between individual values of the apnea + hypopnea index and the corresponding UA aperture inspiratory efficiency index.