Accuracy of Real-Time Data Provided by Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Respiratory care Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.4187/respcare.12221
Roberto Martínez-Alejos, Emeline Fresnel, Alice Vuillermoz, François Beloncle, Marius Lebret
{"title":"Accuracy of Real-Time Data Provided by Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices.","authors":"Roberto Martínez-Alejos, Emeline Fresnel, Alice Vuillermoz, François Beloncle, Marius Lebret","doi":"10.4187/respcare.12221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is crucial to assist patients with impaired cough, especially those with neuromuscular diseases. Despite recent advancements that enable real-time display of peak expiratory flow (PEF) and inspiratory volume, accurately monitoring these parameters with MI-E devices during treatment can still present challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A bench study that used a mechanical lung connected to 3 MI-E devices (EOVE-70; E-70 and Comfort Cough II) was conducted to evaluate PEF and inspiratory volume monitoring accuracy. Two clinical conditions were tested, low and normal compliance, with 6 different MI-E settings tested: +20/-20, +30/-30, +40/-40, +40/-50, +40/-60, and +40/-70 cm H<sub>2</sub>O. PEF (L/min) and inspiratory volume (mL) displayed on the screen were recorded cycle by cycle, while a pneumotachograph connected to the mechanical lung was used to measure the actual PEF and inspiratory volume for data comparison. Flow bias was assessed by calculating the difference (PEF - peak inspiratory flow) and ratio (PEF to peak inspiratory flow) between flows.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All devices systematically underestimated PEF, with device A showing the smallest estimation error (-7.4 [-10.1; -6] %). Devices B and C exhibited larger errors (-26.5 [-29.2; -25.6] and (-29.9 [-30.7; -28.7] %, respectively). All the devices underestimated inspiratory volume, with device B showing the smallest estimation error (-15.1 [-21.2; -12.3] %). Device A exhibited a significantly larger error (-26.9 [-30.3; -24.8] %). The error from device C (-17.7 [-34.5; -13.8] %) was not statistically different from device B. Device type, high pressure settings (> +40/-40 cm H<sub>2</sub>O), and a lung model compliance of 60 mL/cm H<sub>2</sub>O were the main contributors to error in estimating PEF and inspiratory volume. Finally, we observed differences of PEF-to-peak inspiratory flow ratio and PEF minus peak inspiratory flow differences achieved.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study highlighted consistent underestimation of PEF and inspiratory volume across MI-E devices. Improving device monitoring is essential for guiding MI-E therapy and ensuring patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.12221","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is crucial to assist patients with impaired cough, especially those with neuromuscular diseases. Despite recent advancements that enable real-time display of peak expiratory flow (PEF) and inspiratory volume, accurately monitoring these parameters with MI-E devices during treatment can still present challenges.

Methods: A bench study that used a mechanical lung connected to 3 MI-E devices (EOVE-70; E-70 and Comfort Cough II) was conducted to evaluate PEF and inspiratory volume monitoring accuracy. Two clinical conditions were tested, low and normal compliance, with 6 different MI-E settings tested: +20/-20, +30/-30, +40/-40, +40/-50, +40/-60, and +40/-70 cm H2O. PEF (L/min) and inspiratory volume (mL) displayed on the screen were recorded cycle by cycle, while a pneumotachograph connected to the mechanical lung was used to measure the actual PEF and inspiratory volume for data comparison. Flow bias was assessed by calculating the difference (PEF - peak inspiratory flow) and ratio (PEF to peak inspiratory flow) between flows.

Results: All devices systematically underestimated PEF, with device A showing the smallest estimation error (-7.4 [-10.1; -6] %). Devices B and C exhibited larger errors (-26.5 [-29.2; -25.6] and (-29.9 [-30.7; -28.7] %, respectively). All the devices underestimated inspiratory volume, with device B showing the smallest estimation error (-15.1 [-21.2; -12.3] %). Device A exhibited a significantly larger error (-26.9 [-30.3; -24.8] %). The error from device C (-17.7 [-34.5; -13.8] %) was not statistically different from device B. Device type, high pressure settings (> +40/-40 cm H2O), and a lung model compliance of 60 mL/cm H2O were the main contributors to error in estimating PEF and inspiratory volume. Finally, we observed differences of PEF-to-peak inspiratory flow ratio and PEF minus peak inspiratory flow differences achieved.

Conclusions: Our study highlighted consistent underestimation of PEF and inspiratory volume across MI-E devices. Improving device monitoring is essential for guiding MI-E therapy and ensuring patient safety.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机械充气-排气设备提供的实时数据的准确性。
背景:机械充气-排气(MI-E)对于辅助咳嗽受损患者,尤其是神经肌肉疾病患者至关重要。尽管最近取得了进步,能够实时显示呼气峰值流速(PEF)和吸气量,但在治疗过程中使用 MI-E 设备准确监测这些参数仍是一项挑战:一项工作台研究使用了与 3 种 MI-E 设备(EOVE-70、E-70 和 Comfort Cough II)相连的机械肺,以评估呼气峰值流速和吸气量监测的准确性。测试了低顺应性和正常顺应性两种临床条件,并测试了 6 种不同的 MI-E 设置:+20/-20、+30/-30、+40/-40、+40/-50、+40/-60 和 +40/-70 厘米 H2O。逐周期记录屏幕上显示的 PEF(升/分钟)和吸气量(毫升),同时使用与机械肺相连的气压计测量实际 PEF 和吸气量,以进行数据比较。通过计算流量之间的差值(PEF - 吸气峰值流量)和比率(PEF 与吸气峰值流量)来评估流量偏差:结果:所有设备都系统性地低估了 PEF,其中设备 A 的估计误差最小(-7.4 [-10.1; -6]%)。设备 B 和 C 的误差较大(分别为 -26.5 [-29.2; -25.6] % 和 (-29.9 [-30.7; -28.7] %)。所有设备都低估了吸气量,设备 B 的估计误差最小(-15.1 [-21.2; -12.3]%)。设备 A 的误差明显更大(-26.9 [-30.3; -24.8]%)。设备 C 的误差(-17.7 [-34.5; -13.8]%)与设备 B 没有统计学差异。设备类型、高压设置(> +40/-40 cm H2O)和肺模型顺应性为 60 mL/cm H2O 是造成 PEF 和吸气量估计误差的主要原因。最后,我们观察到了 PEF 与吸气峰值流量比值和 PEF 减吸气峰值流量差值的差异:我们的研究突出表明,所有 MI-E 设备都一致低估了 PEF 和吸气量。改进设备监测对于指导 MI-E 治疗和确保患者安全至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Respiratory care
Respiratory care 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
16.00%
发文量
209
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.
期刊最新文献
Effects of Positive Expiratory Pressure Device on Gas Exchange, Atelectasis, Hemodynamics, and Dyspnea in Spontaneously Breathing Critically Ill Subjects. Respiratory Therapy Leaders' Perceptions of Value of Respiratory Care Services. Ventilation Monitoring Using a Noninvasive Bioelectrical Impedance Device in Critically Ill Children. Effect of Continuous Lateral Rotation Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Adults. Maintenance Inhalers for Asthma and COPD in Spain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1