ライフサイエンスコーパス: positive-pressure ventilation

1 7.35 (7.34/7.36) (p = 0.006 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation).

2 27.0 (24.5/27.7) (p = 0.779 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation).

3 pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) while allowing positive pressure ventilation.

4 design on CO2 rebreathing during noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.

5 ient's inspiratory effort during noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.

6 the lung damage associated with conventional positive pressure ventilation.

7 ary artery pressures in the absence of tidal positive pressure ventilation.

8 opulmonary bypass, aortic cross-clamping and positive pressure ventilation.

9 as instilled into the lung while maintaining positive pressure ventilation.

10 start of new treatments such as non-invasive positive pressure ventilation.

11 enuate the drop in cardiac output induced by positive pressure ventilation.

12 spiratory support escalation, and receipt of positive pressure ventilation.

13 d specificity (86%) in predicting the use of positive pressure ventilation.

14 ients with lung injury prior to the need for positive pressure ventilation.

15 ssed to acute lung injury prior to requiring positive pressure ventilation.

16 %) progressed to acute lung injury requiring positive pressure ventilation.

17 s rapidly developed requiring high levels of positive pressure ventilation.

18 hodilators, corticosteroids, and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation.

19 All were sedated and paralyzed and received positive-pressure ventilation.

20 vs 19 patients (7.8%) receiving noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation.

21 ditional primary interface for administering positive-pressure ventilation.

22 ified high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation.

23 elivered through a face mask, or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation.

24 rest and decreased requirement for immediate positive-pressure ventilation.

25 ied high-flow nasal cannula, and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation.

26 stroke volume variation during intermittent positive-pressure ventilation.

27 with an inspiratory threshold valve between positive pressure ventilations.

28 6 minutes at 100 compressions per minute and positive pressure ventilation (100% O2) with a compressi

29 es (torr) were as follows: PaO2 intermittent positive-pressure ventilation, 143 (76/256) and 262 (81/

30 inutes (mm Hg) were as follows: intermittent positive-pressure ventilation, 28.0 (25.0/29.6) and 27.9

31 ve-pressure ventilation); PaCO2 intermittent positive-pressure ventilation, 40 (38/43) and 45 (36/52)

32 th RSV were associated with a greater use of positive pressure ventilation (4074 [29.7%] vs 18 821 [1

33 < 0.001), with increased use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (5% in 1998 to 14% in 2010

34 9) (p = 0.004); mixed venous pH intermittent positive-pressure ventilation, 7.34 (7.31/7.35) and 7.26

35 rtile versus 15% for the others; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, 8% versus 19%; vasopresso

36 to have required oxygen supplementation and positive pressure ventilation after birth than nonasthma

37 Of 1,016 infants, 5.4% underwent positive pressure ventilation and 16.0% had intensive tr

38 lmonary dysplasia between nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and CPAP, both when used a

39 support, most importantly nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and high flow nasal cannul

40 dministration is related to short periods of positive pressure ventilation and implies the risk of lu

41 Invasive positive pressure ventilation and renal replacement ther

42 diac output was measured during intermittent positive-pressure ventilation and after 15 minutes of ne

43 Both intermittent positive-pressure ventilation and bilevel provided simil

44 el, 261 (109/386) (p = 0.195 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 236 (86/364) (p = 0.8

45 ation, 28 (27/32) (p = 0.001 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 26 (18/29) (p = 0.004

46 32.7 (30.4/33.4) (p = 0.021 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 27.0 (24.5/27.7) (p =

47 29.1 (25.6/37.1) (p = 0.574 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 28.7 (24.2/36.5) (p =

48 level, 39 (35/41) (p = 0.574 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 46 (42/49) (p = 0.798

49 on, 598 (471/650) (p < 0.001 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 634 (115/693) (p = 0.

50 7.35 (7.29/7.37) (p = 0.645 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 7.27 (7.17/7.31) (p =

51 7.34 (7.33/7.39) (p = 0.189 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 7.35 (7.34/7.36) (p =

52 and 236 (86/364) (p = 0.878 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation); and chest compression sy

53 7.27 (7.17/7.31) (p = 0.645 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation); and chest compression sy

54 28.7 (24.2/36.5) (p = 0.721 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation); and chest compression sy

55 re admitted to intensive care, 26.4% had new positive-pressure ventilation, and 19.7% received vasopr

56 milking, device selection for administering positive-pressure ventilation, and an additional primary

57 y ventilated with volume-cycled intermittent positive-pressure ventilation, and negative-pressure ven

58 auses induced by means of a step increase in positive-pressure ventilation applied via a face mask.

59 piratory distress syndrome prior to need for positive pressure ventilation are required so that these

60 us positive airway pressure and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation are safe and efficacious.

61 liox gaseous mixture and noninvasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation, are being utilized in the

62 ho progressed to acute lung injury requiring positive pressure ventilation (area under the receiver-o

63 itive airway pressure and nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation as the main factors in the

64 rgoing tracheal intubation with sedation and positive pressure ventilation at 11 intensive care units

65 = 4.7), history of bronchiolitis (OR = 4.7), positive pressure ventilation at birth (OR = 3.3), low m

66 and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence

67 n the vitamin C arm among patients requiring positive-pressure ventilation at the time of enrollment

68 ventilated by three methods: a) intermittent positive pressure ventilation; b) intermittent positive

69 oninvasive ventilation and administration of positive pressure ventilation between induction and lary

70 e investigated the influence of intermittent positive-pressure ventilation, bilevel ventilation, and

71 e (Leycom) were measured over 8 intermittent positive-pressure ventilation breaths at tidal volume of

72 s defined by the acute onset of the need for positive pressure ventilation by an endotracheal or trac

73 orse 24-hr neurologic outcomes compared with positive pressure ventilation cardiopulmonary resuscitat

74 ons, chest radiography, supplemental oxygen, positive pressure ventilation, central venous catheter,

75 >24 hours, septic shock, vasoactive agents, positive-pressure ventilation, chest drainage, extracorp

76 >24 hours, septic shock, vasoactive agents, positive-pressure ventilation, chest drainage, extracorp

77 uration (%) were significantly higher in the positive pressure ventilation compared with the no assis

78 ), animals were randomized into intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (control group), bilevel,

79 ring hospitalization (eg, inotropic support, positive pressure ventilation), diagnoses indicating sev

80 outcomes after continuous compressions with positive-pressure ventilation differed from those after

81 fied high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation do not increase aerosol ge

82 ays' gestation with bradycardia who received positive pressure ventilation during resuscitation after

83 benefit of jet ventilation over conventional positive-pressure ventilation during heart failure.

84 evices and interfaces used for administering positive-pressure ventilation during resuscitation of ne

85 Positive pressure ventilation exposes the lung to mechan

86 ve organ dysfunction (defined as: pulmonary, positive pressure ventilation for > 7 days; renal, incre

87 nt, and maintained on appropriate oxygen and positive pressure ventilation for at least 1 to 2 mo.

88 3, were intubated and initially managed with positive pressure ventilation for severe respiratory fai

89 rve pacemaker (PNP) and the reinstitution of positive-pressure ventilation for 8 mo.

90 ecially in severe patients, and non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation for treatment of acute ven

91 eas the use of oxygen (from 33.6% to 29.3%), positive pressure ventilation (from 10.8% to 7.9%), and

92 ion pressure was significantly higher in the positive pressure ventilation group (33 +/- 15 vs. 14 +/

93 Paco2 was significantly lower in the positive pressure ventilation group (48 +/- 10 vs. 77 +/

94 rbations are becoming known, and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation has become an option for p

95 The uptake of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation has resulted in widespread

96 Both heliox and bilevel positive pressure ventilation have demonstrated clinical

97 Goal targets to achieve lung aeration during positive pressure ventilation have not been established

98 or until the time of intubation, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula,

99 ventilation or high-flow oxygen/noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (HR, 0.73; 95% CI: .53-1.0

100 with higher severity, defined by the use of positive pressure ventilation (i.e., continuous positive

101 ositive airway pressure if breathing well or positive-pressure ventilation if not, with cord clamping

102 ive airway pressure for 10 to 30 minutes and positive pressure ventilation, if needed, with the rando

103 ment may reduce lung parenchymal injury from positive pressure ventilation in ARDS.

104 ous positive airway pressure and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in children with sleep-dis

105 ous positive airway pressure and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in nonresponders has becom

106 I evidence supporting the use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in such critical care sett

107 Role of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in acute lung injury/ARDS

108 luid, sustained inflations for initiation of positive-pressure ventilation, initial oxygen concentrat

109 er therapies for ARDS, including noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, inverse ratio ventilation

110 these patients had not received inspiratory positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) despite having had

111 of conversion from conventional intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) to cuirass negative

112 Intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (IPPV) is the "gold standa

113 sive respiratory support--nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (IPPV) or nasal continuous

114 ll designed studies suggest that noninvasive positive pressure ventilation is not an appropriate inte

115 h as high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation is a concern for healthcar

116 of prolonged HFOV with low tidal volume (VT) positive pressure ventilation (LV-PPV) in an immature ba

117 Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation may be considered a first

118 CPAP with surfactant but without any positive pressure ventilation may work synergistically.

119 ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) during positive pressure ventilation, mechanisms of normal alve

120 either no assisted ventilation (n = 9) or 10 positive pressure ventilations/min (Smart Resuscitator B

121 Although noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) for patients with

122 The association of home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) with outcomes in c

123 tal oxygen, 7618 (9.4%) required noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and 3673 (4.6%) r

124 of assisted ventilation, nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and synchronized i

125 igh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) or both were used

126 The patterns and outcomes of noninvasive, positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) use in patients ho

127 pressure [CPAP] or noninvasive intermittent positive-pressure ventilation [NIPPV]) appears to be of

128 y pressure (PEEP) valve, noninvasive bilevel positive-pressure ventilation, nonrebreather face masks,

129 demonstrate explicitly that lower-frequency positive-pressure ventilation not only preserves adequat

130 Although noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is a widely accepte

131 Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is usually applied

132 We used noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) with a helmet-type

133 ly treated by using intermittent noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV).

134 Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been shown to b

135 Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) is increasingly use

136 We compared noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV), using bilevel posi

137 respirator was switched over to non-invasive positive pressure ventilation on 24th day.

138 terobserver variability was not explained by positive pressure ventilation or by the presence of (> 4

139 either promote lung healing and weaning from positive pressure ventilation or delay recovery because

140 supported with nasally delivered noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula

141 ndomized to the intervention received either positive-pressure ventilation or continuous positive air

142 (2) high-flow nasal cannula, (3) noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or (4) invasive mechanica

143 or more via nonrebreather mask, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or high-flow nasal cannul

144 For the positive pressure ventilation outcome, machine learning

145 and 634 (115/693) (p = 0.054 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation); PaCO2 intermittent posit

146 f a perfluorocarbon liquid during continuous positive-pressure ventilation (partial liquid ventilatio

147 ive of seven alive and neurologically intact positive pressure ventilation pigs with a cerebral perfo

148 ntial of spontaneous breathing effort during positive pressure ventilation (PPV) in adults is well-un

149 Modern clinical devices utilizing positive pressure ventilation (PPV) may overdistend lung

150 pids with bronchiolitis severity, defined by positive pressure ventilation (PPV) use.

151 with more-severe disease, defined by use of positive pressure ventilation (PPV), in infants hospital

152 ontinued debate regarding the equivalency of positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) and negative-pressur

153 stroke volume variation during intermittent positive-pressure ventilation predict preload responsive

154 s with triggering and cycling of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation remain an issue in small o

155 15, they also 1) applied oxygen but deferred positive pressure ventilation several minutes, 2) solidi

156 was achieved in five of eight (intermittent positive-pressure ventilation), six of eight (bilevel),

157 rgical airway condition; chronic noninvasive positive pressure ventilation; the need to replace the e

158 If up to 5% receive positive-pressure ventilation, this evidence evaluation

159 , we randomly assigned neonates who required positive-pressure ventilation to be treated by a midwife

160 ompelling, but evidence favors a noninvasive positive pressure ventilation trial.

161 The outcomes were positive pressure ventilation use and intensive treatmen

162 2.8%-0.1%) reduction per year in noninvasive positive pressure ventilation use compared with the ICU-

163 ficantly enriched subpathway in infants with positive pressure ventilation use compared with those wi

164 ent (admission to intensive care unit and/or positive pressure ventilation use).

165 s are significantly associated with risks of positive pressure ventilation use, including the host-ty

166 uous positive airway pressure or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation use.

167 Positive-pressure ventilation (versus oxygen/room air) w

168 eived continuous positive airway pressure or positive pressure ventilation via face mask and were ran

169 jury criteria to acute lung injury requiring positive pressure ventilation was 20 hours.

170 Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation was superior to continuous

171 ommended in 22% of patients; and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation was used by only 21% of pa

172 Association of home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation with clinical outcomes in

173 Combining positive pressure ventilation with diaphragm neurostimul

174 Positive pressure ventilation with large VTs has been sh

175 sitive pressure ventilation; b) intermittent positive pressure ventilation with tracheal insufflation

176 ositioned at the carina; and c) intermittent positive pressure ventilation with tracheal insufflation

177 Whether positive-pressure ventilation with a bag-mask device (ba

178 lium-oxygen therapy (heliox), or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation within 24 hrs of extubatio