• Respiratory care · Oct 2023

    Bias and Precision of Continuous P0.1 Measurement by Various Ventilators: A Simulation Study.

    • Shinshu Katayama, Ken Tonai, and Shin Nunomiya.
    • Intensive Care Section, Emergency and Critical Care/General Intensive Care Center, Jichi Medical University Hospital, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan. shinsyu_k@jichi.ac.jp.
    • Respir Care. 2023 Oct 1; 68 (10): 139313991393-1399.

    BackgroundMost ventilators measure airway occlusion pressure (occlusion P0.1) by occluding the breathing circuit; however, some ventilators can predict P0.1 for each breath without occlusion. Nevertheless, few studies have verified the accuracy of continuous P0.1 measurement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of continuous P0.1 measurement compared with that of occlusion methods for various ventilators using a lung simulator.MethodsA total of 42 breathing patterns were validated using a lung simulator in combination with 7 different inspiratory muscular pressures and 3 different rise rates to simulate normal and obstructed lungs. PB980 and Dräger V500 ventilators were used to obtain occlusion P0.1 measurements. The occlusion maneuver was performed on the ventilator, and a corresponding reference P0.1 was recorded from the ASL5000 breathing simulator simultaneously. Hamilton-C6, Hamilton-G5, and Servo-U ventilators were used to obtain sustained P0.1 measurements (continuous P0.1). The reference P0.1 measured with the simulator was analyzed by using a Bland-Altman plot.ResultsThe 2 lung mechanical models capable of measuring occlusion P0.1 yielded values equivalent to reference P0.1 (bias and precision values were 0.51 and 1.06, respectively, for the Dräger V500, and were 0.54 and 0.91, respectively, for the PB980). Continuous P0.1 for the Hamilton-C6 was underestimated in both the normal and obstructive models (bias and precision values were -2.13 and 1.91, respectively), whereas continuous P0.1 for the Servo-U was underestimated only in the obstructive model (bias and precision values were -0.86 and 1.76, respectively). Continuous P0.1 for the Hamilton-G5 was mostly similar to but less accurate than occlusion P0.1 (bias and precision values were 1.62 and 2.06, respectively).ConclusionsThe accuracy of continuous P0.1 measurements varies based on the characteristics of the ventilator and should be interpreted by considering the characteristics of each system. Moreover, measurements obtained with an occluded circuit could be desirable for determining the true P0.1.Copyright © 2023 by Daedalus Enterprises.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.