• M Younes, A Puddy, D Roberts, R B Light, A Quesada, K Taylor, L Oppenheimer, and H Cramp.
• Respiratory Investigation Unit, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
• Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1992 Jan 1; 145 (1): 121-9.

AbstractThe response to proportional assist ventilation (PAV) was tested in four normal subjects during heavy exercise and in five ventilator-dependent patients recovering from assorted medical disorders. The apparatus consisted of a rolling-seal piston coupled to a motor that generated pressure in proportion to inspired flow and inspired volume, with the gains adjusted such that the proportionality between airway pressure (Paw) and instantaneous patient-generated pressure (Pmus) was approximately 1:1 (i.e., machine-amplified patient effort by a factor of 2). Normal subjects responded to PAV by decreasing their own effort, as judged from esophageal pressure, such that the changes in ventilation and breathing pattern were rather small (VE: 64.8 +/- 3.6 during PAV versus 56.0 +/- 4.3, p less than 0.01; VT: 2.39 +/- 0.24 versus 2.02 +/- 0.17, p less than 0.05; f: 27.5 +/- 1.9 versus 28.0 +/- 2.2, NS). In patients, elastance ranged from 20 to 35 cm H2O cm/L, resistance ranged from 5 to 10 cm H2O/L/s, and maximal inspiratory pressure ranged from -16 to -65 cm H2O. After a period of observation during synchronized intermittent mechanical ventilation (SIMV) the patient was switched to PAV and maintained on it for 1 to 3 h. No patient had to be replaced on SIMV because of discomfort or deterioration in any of the monitored variables. During PAV peak airway pressure was less than half the value observed with the IMV breaths (16.6 +/- 2.4 versus 35.4 +/- 3.4 cm H2O, p less than 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

15 keywords...

hide…