Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 8200668

An adaptive lung ventilation controller.

Abstract

Closed loop control of ventilation is traditionally based on end-tidal or mean expired CO2. The controlled variables are the respiratory rate RR and the tidal volume VT. Neither patient size or lung mechanics were considered in previous approaches. Also the modes were not suitable for spontaneously breathing subjects. This report presents a new approach to closed loop controlled ventilation, called Adaptive Lung Ventilation (ALV). ALV is based on a pressure controlled ventilation mode suitable for paralyzed, as well as spontaneously breathing, subjects. The clinician enters a desired gross alveolar ventilation (V'gA in l/min), and the ALV controller tries to achieve this goal by automatic adjustment of mechanical rate and inspiratory pressure level. The adjustments are based on measurements of the patient's lung mechanics and series dead space. The ALV controller was tested on a physical lung model with adjustable mechanical properties. Three different lung pathologies were simulated on the lung model to test the controller for rise time (T90), overshoot (Ym), and steady state performance (delta max). The pathologies corresponded to restrictive lung disease (similar to ARDS), a "normal" lung, and obstructive lung disease (such as asthma). Furthermore, feasibility tests were done in 6 patients undergoing surgical procedures in total intravenous anesthesia. In the model studies, the controller responded to step changes between 48 seconds and 81 seconds. It did exhibit an overshoot between 5.5% and 7.9% of the setpoint after the step change.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T P Laubscher, W Heinrichs, N Weiler, G Hartmann, J X Brunner. 1994. An adaptive lung ventilation controller.. https://doi.org/10.1109/10.277271

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assisted vaginal delivery using the vacuum extractor.

Vacuum extractors have replaced forceps for many situations in which assistance is required to achieve vaginal delivery. Compared with metal-cup vacuum extractors, soft-cup devices are easier to use and cause fewer neonatal scalp injuries; however, they detach more frequently. Vacuum extractors can cause neonatal injury. These devices should be employed when indicated, usually for a nonreassuring fetal heart tracing or failure to progress in the second stage of labor. Complications may be minimized if the physician recognizes contraindications to the use of vacuum extraction. Complete documentation is essential.

Equipment Design↗

Intrafractional tumor position stability during computed tomography (CT)-guided frameless stereotactic radiation therapy for lung or liver cancers with a fusion of CT and linear accelerator (FOCAL) unit.

PURPOSE: To evaluate intrafractional tumor position stability during computed tomography (CT)-guided frameless stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) for lung or liver cancers, we checked repeated CT scanning, with a fusion of CT and linear accelerator (FOCAL) unit. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The FOCAL unit is a combination of a linear accelerator (Linac), CT scanner, X-ray simulator (X-S), and carbon table, and is designed to achieve CT-guided SRT with daily CT positioning followed by immediate irradiation while patients keep reduced shallow respirations. To evaluate intrafractional tumor position stability, 50 lung or liver lesions in 20 patients were checked by repeated CT scanning just before and after irradiation, and the obtained images were compared. RESULTS: There was no case with the intrafractional error judged to be greater than 10 mm. In 68% of cases, the intrafractional positioning errors were negligible (0-5 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Using the FOCAL unit, SRT for lung or liver cancers could be performed with intrafractional positioning errors not greater than 10 mm.

Equipment Design↗

Vena caval filters: a comprehensive review.

Hematologists are often asked to treat patients with venous thromboembolic disease. Although anticoagulation remains the primary therapy for venous thromboembolism, vena caval filters are an important alternative when anticoagulants are contraindicated. To assess the evidence supporting the utility of these devices, a comprehensive review of the English language literature was performed. Except for one randomized trial, the vena caval filter literature consists of case series or consecutive case series. The mean duration of follow-up for each of the 5 filter types varies from 6 to 18 months. All are about equally effective in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (2.6%-3.8%). Deep venous thrombosis (6%-32%) and inferior vena cava thrombosis (3.6%-11.2%) after filter placement vary widely among different filter types primarily because of differences in outcome assessment. Thrombosis at the insertion site is a common complication of filter placement (23%-36%). In view of the absence of randomized comparisons, no filter can be designated as superior in safety or efficacy. Vena caval filters represent a potentially important but poorly evaluated therapeutic modality in the prevention of pulmonary emboli. Randomized trials are necessary to establish the appropriate place for vena caval filters in the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease. (Blood. 2000;95:3669-3677)

Equipment Design↗