首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Critical Care Research and Practice >Human versus Computer Controlled Selection of Ventilator Settings: An Evaluation of Adaptive Support Ventilation and Mid-Frequency Ventilation
【2h】

Human versus Computer Controlled Selection of Ventilator Settings: An Evaluation of Adaptive Support Ventilation and Mid-Frequency Ventilation

机译:人机控制与计算机控制的通风机设置选择:自适应支撑通风和中频通风的评估

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background. There are modes of mechanical ventilation that can select ventilator settings with computer controlled algorithms (targeting schemes). Two examples are adaptive support ventilation (ASV) and mid-frequency ventilation (MFV). We studied how different clinician-chosen ventilator settings are from these computer algorithms under different scenarios. Methods. A survey of critical care clinicians provided reference ventilator settings for a 70 kg paralyzed patient in five clinical/physiological scenarios. The survey-derived values for minute ventilation and minute alveolar ventilation were used as goals for ASV and MFV, respectively. A lung simulator programmed with each scenario's respiratory system characteristics was ventilated using the clinician, ASV, and MFV settings. Results. Tidal volumes ranged from 6.1 to 8.3 mL/kg for the clinician, 6.7 to 11.9 mL/kg for ASV, and 3.5 to 9.9 mL/kg for MFV. Inspiratory pressures were lower for ASV and MFV. Clinician-selected tidal volumes were similar to the ASV settings for all scenarios except for asthma, in which the tidal volumes were larger for ASV and MFV. MFV delivered the same alveolar minute ventilation with higher end expiratory and lower end inspiratory volumes. Conclusions. There are differences and similarities among initial ventilator settings selected by humans and computers for various clinical scenarios. The ventilation outcomes are the result of the lung physiological characteristics and their interaction with the targeting scheme.
机译:背景。机械通风有多种模式,可以使用计算机控制的算法(目标方案)选择呼吸机设置。两个示例是自适应支持通气(ASV)和中频通气(MFV)。我们研究了在不同情况下这些计算机算法对临床医生选择的呼吸机设置有何不同。方法。一项对重症监护临床医生的调查为五名临床/生理情景中的70公斤体重瘫痪患者提供了参考呼吸机设置。根据调查得出的分钟通气量和肺泡通气量分别用作ASV和MFV的目标。使用临床医生,ASV和MFV设置为根据每种情景的呼吸系统特征编程的肺部模拟器通气。结果。临床医生的潮气量为6.1至8.3 mL / kg,ASV为6.7至11.9 mL / kg,MFV为3.5至9.9 mL / kg。 ASV和MFV的吸气压力较低。在所有情况下,临床医生选择的潮气量均与ASV设置相似,但哮喘除外,其中对于ASV和MFV的潮气量较大。 MFV的肺泡分钟通气量相同,呼气量和呼气量较低。结论。人类和计算机针对各种临床情况选择的初始呼吸机设置之间存在差异和相似之处。通气结果是肺部生理特征及其与靶向方案相互作用的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号