PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J M Hendler

Publications and source records attributed to J M Hendler.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1993

Intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure in ambulatory patients with airways obstruction.

In patients with severe expiratory airflow limitation, dynamic hyperinflation often occurs when inspiratory efforts are initiated at a thoracic volume above the relaxation point of the respiratory system. The result is intrinsic positive end-expiratory alveolar pressure (PEEPi). To determine whether PEEPi occurs in ambulatory patients, we measured alveolar pressure (Palv) noninvasively during tidal breathing in 8 normal subjects, 15 asthmatic subjects, and 19 patients with COPD, using a body plethysmographic technique that includes computerized corrections for nonlinear pneumotachometer output and for plethysmograph leakage. In all 8 normal subjects, 9 asthmatic subjects, and 3 COPD patients, Palv descended smoothly to zero at end expiration. In contrast, among each of the remaining 22 patients, there was an abrupt change in slope of the Palv tracing near end expiration, identifying the onset of the next inspiratory effort and indicating the presence of PEEPi, ranging from 0.2 to 9.5 cm H2O. PEEPi was significantly correlated with FRC (% of predicted); PEEPi = (0.040 x %FRC) - 3.65, r = 0.73, p < 0.001, and with the reciprocal of FEV1 (% of predicted), PEEPi = (138/%FEV1) - 1.34, r = 0.69, p < 0.001. PEEPi could be elicited in normal subjects by severe expiratory resistive loading but not by the increased expiratory muscle activity occurring during an MVV maneuver. We conclude that PEEPi is common in patients with airways obstruction, even without overt ventilatory failure, and that its severity is generally in proportion to the severity of the hyperinflation and the airways obstruction.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

An evaluation of the accuracy of Assess and MiniWright peak flowmeters.

With the advent of small inexpensive peak flowmeters, the at-home monitoring of peak flow rates has become an invaluable aid in the treatment of asthmatic patients. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the MiniWright and Assess peak flowmeters for accuracy and reproducibility. Measurements were made at varying peak flow rates and compared with those obtained simultaneously by a calibrated pneumotachograph. When this segment of the study was completed, the peak flow devices were subjected to 200 uses and were then retested. Four MiniWright peak flowmeters that had been extensively used in our clinic were tested as well. The Assess peak flowmeter was more accurate than the MiniWright at low flow rates (less than 300 L/min), while the MiniWright meter was more accurate at high flow rates (greater than 400 L/min). We also found that the accuracy of the MiniWright meter deteriorated after 200 uses and worsened further after extensive use, while the Assess meter retained its accuracy after 200 uses.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed1991

Pneumatoceles.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Maximal inspiratory pressure is not a reliable test of inspiratory muscle strength in mechanically ventilated patients.

Maximal Inspiratory pressure (MIP) is an important clinical method used to assess respiratory muscle strength. The reliability and reproducibility of this measurement in mechanically ventilated patients is not certain. In 14 stable, mechanically ventilated patients, capable of spontaneous inspiratory efforts, we assessed maximal inspiratory efforts using the technique originally described by Marini and associates. MIP was measured in triplicate, by one to five experienced investigators, on one to seven successive days, for a total of 396 determinations on 54 patient days. The coefficients of variation among the triplicate efforts averaged 12 +/- 1%, indicating the test to be highly reproducible. There was significant variation among the MIP reported by different investigators studying the same patient on the same day (32 +/- 4%). The differences between best MIP by different investigators averaged 12.6 +/- 1.3cm H2O (40 +/- 4%). In 17 of 44 cases, one investigator placed MIP above -30cm H2O, whereas another placed it below. ANOVA showed that MIP was significantly affected by investigator (p less than 0.0001) as well as by patient (p less than 0.0001). Because "true" MIP must be equal to or greater than the best measured MIP, these data indicate that the MIP is commonly underestimated in patients receiving mechanical ventilation, even when standardized technique is used. Furthermore, our data show that reproducibility of triplicate MIP determination by a single observer does not indicate that the test is reliable.

Aged↗