PubMed · 14777903
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P FRENCKNER. 1950-11-18. Bronchospirometry.. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.4689.1166
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Endobronchial valve placement improves pulmonary function in some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but its effects on exercise physiology have not been investigated. In 19 patients with a mean (SD) FEV(1) of 28.4 (11.9)% predicted, studied before and 4 weeks after unilateral valve insertion, functional residual capacity decreased from 7.1 (1.5) to 6.6 (1.7) L (p = 0.03) and diffusing capacity rose from 3.3 (1.1) to 3.7 (1.2) mmol . minute(-1) . kPa(-1) (p = 0.03). Cycle endurance time at 80% of peak workload increased from 227 (129) to 315 (195) seconds (p = 0.03). This was associated with a reduction in end-expiratory lung volume at peak exercise from 7.6 (1.6) to 7.2 (1.7) L (p = 0.03). Using stepwise logistic regression analysis, a model containing changes in transfer factor and resting inspiratory capacity explained 81% of the variation in change in exercise time (p < 0.0001). The same variables were retained if the five patients with radiologic atelectasis were excluded from analysis. In a subgroup of patients in whom invasive measurements were performed, improvement in exercise capacity was associated with a reduction in lung compliance (r(2) = 0.43; p = 0.03) and isotime esophageal pressure-time product (r(2) = 0.47; p = 0.03). Endobronchial valve placement can improve lung volumes and gas transfer in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and prolong exercise time by reducing dynamic hyperinflation.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Percutaneous dilatation tracheostomy in the intensive care setting presents an increasingly important concept for establishing a large-bore tracheal airway with minimal surgical intervention. Over the last years, different technical solutions have been studied to assess their respective risks and benefits to determine whether one method is actually superior. A recent observational study comparing two such techniques prompted this commentary, which reviews the current literature, comments on study design and suggests interesting topics for future research in this field.