METHODS: Data from 275 breaths aggregated from all mechanically ventilated patients at Christchurch Hospital were used in this study. The breath specific respiratory elastance is calculated using a time-varying elastance model. A pressure reconstruction method is proposed to reconstruct pressure waves identified as being affected by SB effort. The area under the curve of the time-varying respiratory elastance (AUC Edrs) are calculated and compared, where unreconstructed waves yield lower AUC Edrs. The difference between the reconstructed and unreconstructed pressure is denoted as a surrogate measure of SB effort.
RESULTS: The pressure reconstruction method yielded a median AUC Edrs of 19.21 [IQR: 16.30-22.47]cmH2Os/l. In contrast, the median AUC Edrs for unreconstructed M-wave data was 20.41 [IQR: 16.68-22.81]cmH2Os/l. The pressure reconstruction method had the least variability in AUC Edrs assessed by the robust coefficient of variation (RCV)=0.04 versus 0.05 for unreconstructed data. Each patient exhibited different levels of SB effort, independent from MV setting, indicating the need for non-invasive, real time assessment of SB effort.
CONCLUSION: A simple reconstruction method enables more consistent real-time estimation of the true, underlying respiratory system mechanics of a SB patient and provides the surrogate of SB effort, which may be clinically useful for clinicians in determining optimal ventilator settings to improve patient care.
METHOD: The CAE model was trained using 12,170,655 simulated SB flow and normal flow data (NB). The paired SB and NB flow data were simulated using a Gaussian Effort Model (GEM) with 5 basis functions. When the CAE model is given a SB flow input, it is capable of predicting a corresponding NB flow for the SB flow input. The magnitude of SB effort (SBEMag) is then quantified as the difference between the SB and NB flows. The CAE model was used to evaluate the SBEMag of 9 pressure control/ support datasets. Results were validated using a mean squared error (MSE) fitting between clinical and training SB flows.
RESULTS: The CAE model was able to produce NB flows from the clinical SB flows with the median SBEMag of the 9 datasets being 25.39% [IQR: 21.87-25.57%]. The absolute error in SBEMag using MSE validation yields a median of 4.77% [IQR: 3.77-8.56%] amongst the cohort. This shows the ability of the GEM to capture the intrinsic details present in SB flow waveforms. Analysis also shows both intra-patient and inter-patient variability in SBEMag.
CONCLUSION: A Convolutional Autoencoder model was developed with simulated SB and NB flow data and is capable of quantifying the magnitude of patient spontaneous breathing effort. This provides potential application for real-time monitoring of patient respiratory drive for better management of patient-ventilator interaction.
METHODS: An iterative airway pressure reconstruction (IPR) method is used to reconstruct asynchronous airway pressure waveforms to better match passive breathing airway waveforms using a single compartment model. The reconstructed pressure enables estimation of respiratory mechanics of airway pressure waveform essentially free from asynchrony. Reconstruction enables real-time breath-to-breath monitoring and quantification of the magnitude of the asynchrony (MAsyn).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Over 100,000 breathing cycles from MV patients with known asynchronous breathing were analyzed. The IPR was able to reconstruct different types of asynchronous breathing. The resulting respiratory mechanics estimated using pressure reconstruction were more consistent with smaller interquartile range (IQR) compared to respiratory mechanics estimated using asynchronous pressure. Comparing reconstructed pressure with asynchronous pressure waveforms quantifies the magnitude of asynchronous breathing, which has a median value MAsyn for the entire dataset of 3.8%.
CONCLUSION: The iterative pressure reconstruction method is capable of identifying asynchronous breaths and improving respiratory mechanics estimation consistency compared to conventional model-based methods. It provides an opportunity to automate real-time quantification of asynchronous breathing frequency and magnitude that was previously limited to invasively method only.
METHODS: Two stochastic models (SM2 and SM3) were developed using retrospective patient respiratory elastance (Ers) from two clinical cohorts which were averaged over time intervals of 10 and 30 min respectively. A stochastic model from a previous study (SM1) was used to benchmark performance. The stochastic models were clinically validated on an independent retrospective clinical cohort of 14 patients. Differences in predictive ability were evaluated using the difference in percentile lines and cumulative distribution density (CDD) curves.
RESULTS: Clinical validation shows all three models captured more than 98% (median) of future Ers data within the 5th - 95th percentile range. Comparisons of stochastic model percentile lines reported a maximum mean absolute percentage difference of 5.2%. The absolute differences of CDD curves were less than 0.25 in the ranges of 5
METHODS: Young healthy volunteers of either sex aged between 19-24 years, participated in the sessions using URNB/ULNB (n = 52) and FURNB/FULNB (n = 28). The nostril dominance was calculated from signals recorded on the PowerLab equipment, representing pressure changes at the end of the nostrils during respiration. The IOP was measured with Tono-Pen. The subjects were divided into 4 groups viz. right nostril dominant (RND), left nostril dominant (LND), transitional right nostril dominant (TRND) and transitional left nostril dominant (TLND) groups. The IOP data 'before and after' URNB/ULNB or FURNB/FULNB were compared by using paired t-test. The baseline data of IOP between the groups were analysed by using independent samples t-test.
RESULTS: The URNB decreased the IOP in the LND and TLND (p < 0.01) and also in the RND (p < 0.05) groups but not significantly in the TRND group. The ULNB decreased the IOP in the RND group (p < 0.01) only. The FURNB significantly reduced the IOP (p < 0.05) only in the LND and RND groups. The FULNB decreased the IOP but not significantly. The baseline IOP did not differ significantly between the LND, RND, TLND and TRND groups.
CONCLUSION: The URNB/FURNB reduced the IOP, while ULNB/FULNB failed to increase the IOP significantly. It is suggested that the lowering of IOP by URNB indicated sympathetic stimulation.
METHODS: Non-linear autoregressive (NARX) model is used to reconstruct missing airway pressure due to the presence of spontaneous breathing effort in mv patients. Then, the incidence of SB patients is estimated. The study uses a total of 10,000 breathing cycles collected from 10 ARDS patients from IIUM Hospital in Kuantan, Malaysia. In this study, there are 2 different ratios of training and validating methods. Firstly, the initial ratio used is 60:40 which indicates 600 breath cycles for training and remaining 400 breath cycles used for testing. Then, the ratio is varied using 70:30 ratio for training and testing data.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The mean residual error between original airway pressure and reconstructed airway pressure is denoted as the magnitude of effort. The median and interquartile range of mean residual error for both ratio are 0.0557 [0.0230 - 0.0874] and 0.0534 [0.0219 - 0.0870] respectively for all patients. The results also show that Patient 2 has the highest percentage of SB incidence and Patient 10 with the lowest percentage of SB incidence which proved that NARX model is able to perform for both higher incidence of SB effort or when there is a lack of SB effort.
CONCLUSION: This model is able to produce the SB incidence rate based on 10% threshold. Hence, the proposed NARX model is potentially useful to estimate and identify patient-specific SB effort, which has the potential to further assist clinical decisions and optimize MV settings.
Materials and Methods: This randomized experimental study was conducted in the Department of Physiology, Chittagong Medical College, Chattogram, from July 2017 to June 2018. A total of 100 1st-year students, aged between 18 and 20 years, were included by a random sampling method. Fifty participants (25 males and 25 females) were enrolled in the experimental group, while age- and body mass index-matched another 50 participants (25 males and 25 females) served as the control group. Experimental group participants performed ANB exercise for 4 weeks. Cardiorespiratory parameters (pulse rate, blood pressure, forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1st s [FEV1], and peak expiratory flow rate [PEFR] were measured. Data were taken at the start and after 4 weeks in both groups.
Results: Independent t-test showed no significant differences in the cardiorespiratory functions between the experimental and control groups among the male and female participants, except for the females' PEFR which showed small differences. On the other hand, repeated measure ANOVA shows significant improvement in the experimental groups among males (P < 0.001-0.028) and females (P < 0.001-0.001) in all the cardiorespiratory functions measured, except for the FEV1 and PEFR among males.
Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that cardiorespiratory functions were improved after breathing exercise, and therefore, ANB can be recommended for increasing cardiorespiratory efficiency.
METHODS: Gaussian effort model (GEM) is a derivative of the single-compartment model with basis function. GEM model uses a linear combination of basis functions to model the nonlinear pressure waveform of spontaneous breathing patients. The GEM model estimates respiratory mechanics such as Elastance and Resistance along with the magnitudes of basis functions, which accounts for patient inspiratory effort.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The GEM model was tested using both simulated data and a retrospective observational clinical trial patient data. GEM model fitting to the original airway pressure waveform is better than any existing models when reverse triggering asynchrony is present. The fitting error of GEM model was less than 10% for both simulated data and clinical trial patient data.
CONCLUSION: GEM can capture the respiratory mechanics in the presence of patient effect in volume control ventilation mode and also can be used to assess patient-ventilator interaction. This model determines basis functions magnitudes, which can be used to simulate any waveform of patient effort pressure for future studies. The estimation of parameter identification GEM model can further be improved by constraining the parameters within a physiologically plausible range during least-square nonlinear regression.
METHODS: Our aim was to determine normative EGJ metrics in a large international cohort of healthy volunteers undergoing HRM (Medtronic, Laborie, and Diversatek software) acquired from 16 countries in four world regions. EGJ-CI was calculated by the same two investigators using a distal contractile integral-like measurement across the EGJ for three respiratory cycles and corrected for respiration (mm Hg cm), using manufacturer-specific software tools. EGJ morphology was designated according to Chicago Classification v3.0. Median EGJ-CI values were calculated across age, genders, HRM systems, and regions.
RESULTS: Of 484 studies (28.0 years, 56.2% F, 60.7% Medtronic studies, 26.0% Laborie, and 13.2% Diversatek), EGJ morphology was type 1 in 97.1%. Median EGJ-CI was similar between Medtronic (37.0 mm Hg cm, IQR 23.6-53.7 mm Hg cm) and Diversatek (34.9 mm Hg cm, IQR 22.1-56.1 mm Hg cm, P = 0.87), but was significantly higher using Laborie equipment (56.5 mm Hg cm, IQR 35.0-75.3 mm Hg cm, P