Stephen E Rees1, S Kjaergaard, S Andreassen, G Hedenstierna. 1. Center for Model-Based Medical Decision Support, Institute for Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers vej 7E, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark. sr@hst.aau.dk
Abstract
PURPOSE: The multiple inert gas elimination technique (MIGET) is the reference method for evaluating pulmonary gas exchange. MIGET includes a complex experimental method and mathematical model, and has not been used routinely in clinical practice. A simpler mathematical model has been proposed, and was shown previously to fit inert gas data from oleic acid damage. This paper explores the capability of this simple model to describe more complex damage, and to calculate oxygenation data upon changing the inspired oxygen fraction (FIO(2)), comparing these results with those obtained using MIGET. METHODS: The comparison of oxygenation was done at different ventilator settings and at varying values of FIO(2) in order to mimic the clinical conditions that occur in the intensive care unit. RESULTS: The simple model describes inert gas data from heterogeneous lung damage within measurement noise. Model simulations performed using the MIGET and the simple model are comparable, the MIGET model simulating partial pressure of oxygen (PaO(2)) values on average 0.22 ± 0.59 kPa (± SD) higher than the simple model. Model simulations are also accurate with a difference between model simulated and measured values of PaO(2) of 0.33 ± 1.48 kPa (± SD) for the MIGET model and 0.12 ± 1.33 kPa (± SD) for the simple model. This comparability and accuracy was similar over different ventilator settings. CONCLUSIONS: The simple model provides a description of lung damage and arterial oxygenation which is comparable to the MIGET, calculating PaO(2) with acceptable accuracy and precision over the clinically relevant range of PaO(2), and for different values of FIO(2), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio (I:E).
PURPOSE: The multiple inert gas elimination technique (MIGET) is the reference method for evaluating pulmonary gas exchange. MIGET includes a complex experimental method and mathematical model, and has not been used routinely in clinical practice. A simpler mathematical model has been proposed, and was shown previously to fit inert gas data from oleic acid damage. This paper explores the capability of this simple model to describe more complex damage, and to calculate oxygenation data upon changing the inspired oxygen fraction (FIO(2)), comparing these results with those obtained using MIGET. METHODS: The comparison of oxygenation was done at different ventilator settings and at varying values of FIO(2) in order to mimic the clinical conditions that occur in the intensive care unit. RESULTS: The simple model describes inert gas data from heterogeneous lung damage within measurement noise. Model simulations performed using the MIGET and the simple model are comparable, the MIGET model simulating partial pressure of oxygen (PaO(2)) values on average 0.22 ± 0.59 kPa (± SD) higher than the simple model. Model simulations are also accurate with a difference between model simulated and measured values of PaO(2) of 0.33 ± 1.48 kPa (± SD) for the MIGET model and 0.12 ± 1.33 kPa (± SD) for the simple model. This comparability and accuracy was similar over different ventilator settings. CONCLUSIONS: The simple model provides a description of lung damage and arterial oxygenation which is comparable to the MIGET, calculating PaO(2) with acceptable accuracy and precision over the clinically relevant range of PaO(2), and for different values of FIO(2), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio (I:E).
Authors: Peter Schellongowski; Heidrun Losert; Gottfried J Locker; Klaus Laczika; Michael Frass; Ulrike Holzinger; Andja Bojic; Thomas Staudinger Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-01-25 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: S Kjaergaard; S E Rees; J A Nielsen; M Freundlich; P Thorgaard; S Andreassen Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: S Andreassen; S E Rees; S Kjaergaard; P Thorgaard; S M Winter; C J Morgan; P Alstrup; E Toft Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Maria Paula Caramez; Robert M Kacmarek; Mohamed Helmy; Eriko Miyoshi; Atul Malhotra; Marcelo B P Amato; R Scott Harris Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-01-31 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Lars P Thomsen; Dan S Karbing; Bram W Smith; David Murley; Ulla M Weinreich; Søren Kjærgaard; Egon Toft; Per Thorgaard; Steen Andreassen; Stephen E Rees Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Brijesh Patel; Sharon Mumby; Nicholas Johnson; Emanuela Falaschetti; Jorgen Hansen; Ian Adcock; Danny McAuley; Masao Takata; Dan S Karbing; Matthieu Jabaudon; Peter Schellengowski; Stephen E Rees Journal: Trials Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: M P Vizcaychipi; Laura Martins; James R White; Dan Stleper Karbing; Amandeep Gupta; Suveer Singh; Leyla Osman; Jeronimo Moreno-Cuesta; Steve Rees Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Dan Stieper Karbing; Mauro Panigada; Nicola Bottino; Elena Spinelli; Alessandro Protti; Stephen Edward Rees; Luciano Gattinoni Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 9.097