Literature DB >> 18840587

Physiological noise versus white noise to drive a variable ventilator in a porcine model of lung injury.

Kevin F Froehlich1, M Ruth Graham, Timothy G Buchman, Linda G Girling, Nicola Scafetta, Bruce J West, Elizabeth K-Y Walker, Bruce M McManus, W Alan C Mutch.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Variable ventilation is superior to control mode ventilation in a number of circumstances. The nature of the breathing file used to deliver the variable rate and tidal volume has not been formally examined.
METHODS: We compared two different noise files in a randomized prospective trial of variable ventilation. Pigs were anesthetized, intubated, and mechanically ventilated. Oleic acid was infused to introduce lung injury. The animals were ventilated at a tidal volume of 7 mL x kg(-1), in variable mode, with either physiologically-derived noise (variability file - 1,587 breath intervals-obtained from a spontaneously breathing volunteer; n = 10) or a variability file of identical length derived from computer- generated white noise (n = 10).
RESULTS: The physiologically-derived noise had a power law alpha-exponent of -0.27 and a Hölder exponent of -0.38, indicative of auto-correlated noise. The computer-generated noise had an alpha-exponent of -0.52 and a Hölder exponent of -0.49, indicative of white noise. Both files showed multifractal characteristics. There were no differences between groups, at any time period, for PaO2, PaCO2, and static or dynamic respiratory system compliance. No differences were observed between groups for wet:dry lung weight ratios or for interleukin-8 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the nature of the variability files, chosen to drive the variable ventilator, had no effect on indices of gas exchange or respiratory mechanics in this model. A considerable overlap of the multifractal files existed. The potential to drive a variable ventilator using algorithm-derived files with multifractal characteristics, thereby eliminating the requirement to use physiologically-derived signals, is discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18840587     DOI: 10.1007/bf03021431

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Anaesth        ISSN: 0832-610X            Impact factor:   5.063


  6 in total

1.  Effects of recruitment/derecruitment dynamics on the efficacy of variable ventilation.

Authors:  Baoshun Ma; Béla Suki; Jason H T Bates
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2011-03-03

2.  Short-term effects of noisy pressure support ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Authors:  Peter M Spieth; Andreas Güldner; Robert Huhle; Alessandro Beda; Thomas Bluth; Dierk Schreiter; Max Ragaller; Birgit Gottschlich; Thomas Kiss; Samir Jaber; Paolo Pelosi; Thea Koch; Marcelo Gama de Abreu
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2013-10-31       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 3.  Variable mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  Paula Caitano Fontela; Renata Bernardy Prestes; Luiz Alberto Forgiarini; Gilberto Friedman
Journal:  Rev Bras Ter Intensiva       Date:  2017 Jan-Mar

4.  Periodic Fluctuation of Tidal Volumes Further Improves Variable Ventilation in Experimental Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Authors:  Andreas Güldner; Robert Huhle; Alessandro Beda; Thomas Kiss; Thomas Bluth; Ines Rentzsch; Sarah Kerber; Nadja C Carvalho; Michael Kasper; Paolo Pelosi; Marcelo G de Abreu
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-07-12       Impact factor: 4.566

5.  Variable Ventilation Is Equally Effective as Conventional Pressure Control Ventilation for Optimizing Lung Function in a Rabbit Model of ARDS.

Authors:  Gergely H Fodor; Sam Bayat; Gergely Albu; Na Lin; Aurélie Baudat; Judit Danis; Ferenc Peták; Walid Habre
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2019-06-26       Impact factor: 4.566

6.  Variable versus conventional lung protective mechanical ventilation during open abdominal surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Peter M Spieth; Andreas Güldner; Christopher Uhlig; Thomas Bluth; Thomas Kiss; Marcus J Schultz; Paolo Pelosi; Thea Koch; Marcelo Gama de Abreu
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 2.279

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.