• Admin
    UC Research Repository
    View Item 
       
    • UC Home
    • Library
    • UC Research Repository
    • College of Engineering
    • Engineering: Journal Articles
    • View Item
       
    • UC Home
    • Library
    • UC Research Repository
    • College of Engineering
    • Engineering: Journal Articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of the RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    Analysis of different model-based approaches for estimating dFRC for real-time aplication

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    12645335_dFRC 1-breath - BME Online - PRINTED.pdf (1.252Mb)
    Author
    Van Drunen, E.J.
    Chase, J.G.
    Chiew, Y.S.
    Shaw, G.M.
    Desaive, T.
    Date
    2013
    Permanent Link
    http://hdl.handle.net/10092/8853

    Background: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is characterized by inflammation, filling of the lung with fluid and the collapse of lung units. Mechanical ventilation (MV) is used to treat ARDS using positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) to recruit and retain lung units, thus increasing pulmonary volume and dynamic functional residual capacity (dFRC) at the end of expiration. However, simple, non-invasive methods to estimate dFRC do not exist. Methods: Four model-based methods for estimating dFRC are compared based on their performance on two separate clinical data cohorts. The methods are derived from either stress-strain theory or a single compartment lung model, and use commonly controlled or measured parameters (lung compliance, plateau airway pressure, pressure-volume (PV) data). Population constants are determined for the stress-strain approach, which is implemented using data at both single and multiple PEEP levels. Estimated values are compared to clinically measured values to assess the reliability of each method for each cohort individually and combined. Results: The stress-strain multiple breath (at multiple PEEP levels) method produced an overall correlation coefficient R2 = 0.966. The stress-strain single breath method produced R2 = 0.530. The single compartment single breath method produced R2 = 0.415. A combined method at single and multiple PEEP levels produced R2 = 0.963. Conclusions: The results suggest that model-based, single breath and non-invasive approaches to estimating dFRC may be viable in a clinical scenario, ensuring no interruption to MV. The models provide a means of estimating dFRC at any PEEP level. However, model limitations and large estimation errors limit the use of the methods at very low PEEP.

    Subjects
    mechanical ventilation
     
    functional residual capacity
     
    FRC
     
    dFRC
     
    PEEP
     
    pulmonary
     
    model-based methods
     
    ARDS
     
    intensive care
     
    ICU
     
    Field of Research::11 - Medical and Health Sciences::1102 - Cardiovascular Medicine and Haematology::110203 - Respiratory Diseases
     
    Field of Research::11 - Medical and Health Sciences::1103 - Clinical Sciences::110310 - Intensive Care
    Collections
    • Engineering: Journal Articles [1125]
    Rights
    https://hdl.handle.net/10092/17651

    UC Research Repository
    University Library
    University of Canterbury
    Private Bag 4800
    Christchurch 8140

    Phone
    364 2987 ext 8718

    Email
    ucresearchrepository@canterbury.ac.nz

    Follow us
    FacebookTwitterYoutube

    © University of Canterbury Library
    Send Feedback | Contact Us