PubMed · 15192715
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Y Maidment. 2004-06-12. Do cycle helmets work?. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811363
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used in intensive care medicine, but only little information is available how different NIV interfaces affect the performance of a ventilatory system. Therefore, we compared delay times, pressure time products (PTPs), and wasted efforts during inspiration among patients receiving invasive ventilation and NIV with a helmet (NIV-h) or a face mask (NIV-fm). METHODS: Using an in vitro lung model capable of simulating spontaneous breathing, gas flow and airway pressure were measured with varying positive end-expiratory pressure and pressure support (PS) levels. Wasted efforts were determined while lung compliance, respiratory rate (RR), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and PS levels were changed. RESULTS: Delay times were more than twice as long with a helmet compared to NIV-fm or invasive ventilation (p < 0.001), but decreased during NIV-h with increasing CPAP (p < 0.001) and PS levels (p < 0.001). During the initial inspiratory phase, PTP was smaller with NIV-h compared to NIV-fm or invasive ventilation, but not so when a complete inspiration with PS was evaluated. Wasted efforts occurred earlier during NIV-h and were aggravated with rising PS, RR, and compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Although delay times are prolonged during NIV-h, PTP is initially smaller compared to NIV-fm and invasive ventilation, indicating less work of breathing due to the high volume the patient can access. Increasing the CPAP or PS level decreases delay times in NIV-h and should therefore be considered whenever possible. Wasted inspiratory efforts occurred at higher RRs and should carefully be monitored during NIV.
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of helmet use on non-head-neck injury severity and crash circumstances in skiers and snowboarders. We used a matched case-control study over the November 2001 to April 2002 winter season. 3295 of 4667 injured skiers and snowboarders reporting to the ski patrol at 19 areas in Quebec with non-head, non-neck injuries agreed to participate. Cases included those evacuated by ambulance, admitted to hospital, with restriction of normal daily activities (NDAs) >6 days, with non-helmet equipment damage, fast self-reported speed, participating on a more difficult run than usual, and jumping-related injury. Controls were injured participants without severe injuries or high-energy crash circumstances and were matched to cases on ski area, activity, day, age, and sex. Conditional logistic regression was used to relate each outcome to helmet use. There was no evidence that helmet use increased the risk of severe injury or high-energy crash circumstances. The results suggest that helmet use in skiing and snowboarding is not associated with riskier activities that lead to non-head-neck injuries.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.