ライフサイエンスコーパス: PEFR

1 PEFR gradually returned to pretreatment baseline levels

2 PEFR increases over the first 24 h in AHF and could serv

3 PEFR, FVC, FEV1, and FEF25-75 all increased with increas

4 ys-off due to asthma [1.203 (1.148; 1.258)], PEFR<80 [0.76 (0.666; 0.854)], non-use of a self-managem

5 2.3+/-0.4 versus 2.1+/-0.4 L, P<0.0005), and PEFR (446+/-55 versus 414+/-56 L. min-1, P<0.005).

6 ceding inspiration when determining FEV1 and PEFR.

7 ependent effects on respiratory symptoms and PEFR in children.

8 Median baseline PEFR was 225 l/min (interquartile range [IQR]: 160 to 30

9 Three daily PEFR measurements (start-of-shift, end-of-shift, and bed

10 urs was associated with a deficit in evening PEFR (-0.5 liters/minute 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4) and increas

11 ity was associated with a deficit in evening PEFR (-0.5 liters/minute, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.2) and increa

12 41 L/min (95% CI: 8 to 74 L/min) in evening PEFR among asthmatic children.

13 time and treatment over 24 h showed greater PEFR improvement after nesiritide compared with placebo

14 The 24-h PEFR change related to moderate or marked dyspnea improv

15 However, PEFR data were not provided to the pharmacist.

16 6-h postdose average FEV(1) and FVC, and in PEFR, without a significant difference among the differe

17 3 increase in PM10, the estimated decline in PEFR was 13.2 L/min (p = 0.008) for end-of-shift, 9.9 L/

18 steroids group had the greatest declines in %PEFR (1.3%, versus < 0.5% in each of the other three gro

19 ir use; during monthly telephone interviews, PEFR rates were not elicited.

20 low rate (PEFR), and MMEF; and O3 with lower PEFR and MMEF.

21 rial peak expiratory flow rate measurements (PEFR) using a mini-Wright meter.

22 ion was associated with a deficit in morning PEFR (-1.0 liters/minute, 95% confidence interval (CI) -

23 .8, 95% CI 1.0-3.2) and a deficit in morning PEFR (-1.5 liters/minute, 95% CI -2.8 to -0.2).

24 Gly/Gly genotype had an increase in morning PEFR during treatment with regularly scheduled albuterol

25 Arg/Arg genotype had an increase in morning PEFR of 23 L/min (p=0.0162); the change in patients with

26 with the Arg/Arg genotype had lower morning PEFR during treatment with albuterol than during the pla

27 .27), normalized FVC (r = -0.22), normalized PEFR (r = -0.27), low-density lipoprotein (r = 0.24), an

28 d hemoglobin level (r = 0.28) and normalized PEFR (r = -0.23).

29 Hypertension and decreased normalized PEFR are the principal predictors of deep white matter h

30 luded, hypertension and decreased normalized PEFR were predictive of 11.7% of the variance.

31 s of variation for replicate measurements of PEFR, FVC, FEV1, and FEF25-75 were 7.8%, 2.5%, 2.7%, and

32 Mean values of PEFR, FEV1, and FEF25-75 were 83 +/- 24, 92 +/- 23, and

33 iritide had a greater effect than placebo on PEFR, and this predicted patients with moderate/marked i

34 75) (-8.12%), and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) (-4.65%) as compared with children with less than

35 ines in morning % peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) (1.8% versus 0.3% per 15 ppb ozone, p < 0.05) and

36 0.57) or initial peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) (51% versus 53% of predicted, p = 0.52).

37 en measured their peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) every morning and evening, and kept a daily diary

38 addition, morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) improved significantly (mean 9.4%, SEM 3.0%) in th

39 rate (T-PEFR) to peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) of 10%, 25%, 50%, and 75% (the smaller this ratio

40 We found that peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was significantly lower after both a slow inspirat

41 Morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was the primary outcome variable.

42 hypothesized that peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) would increase with acute heart failure (AHF) trea

43 lower FVC, FEV1, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), and MMEF; and O3 with lower PEFR and MMEF.

44 ate (EEFR) to the peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR; from 10% to 25% to 50% to 75%).

45 pacity [FVC], and peak expiratory flow rate [PEFR]) normalized for subject's height, plasma lipid lev

46 Peak expiratory flow rates (PEFR) and signs and symptoms were serially monitored.

47 al capacity, and peak expiratory flow rates (PEFR) were also recorded.

48 Microstrain was minimized with an APRV T-PEFR to PEFR ratio of 75% (mean [SEM], 0.05 [0.03]) and

49 H2O (mean [SEM], 0.09 [0.08]), but an APRV T-PEFR to PEFR ratio of 75% also promoted alveolar recruit

50 mproved alveolar recruitment using an APRV T-PEFR to PEFR ratio of 75% may be the mechanism of lung p

51 EP (16-24 cm H2O) and a brief T(low) (APRV T-PEFR to PEFR ratio of 75%) reduced microstrain.

52 termination of peak expiratory flow rate (T-PEFR) to peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) of 10%, 25%, 5

53 n the usual care group (P =.02) but not than PEFR monitoring controls (P =.28).

54 The PEFR monitoring control group (n = 363) received a peak

55 t than the usual care group (P =.03) and the PEFR monitoring group (P =.001) and were more satisfied

56 n, and after three doses of medication their PEFR still did not exceed 40% of the expected value.

57 r PEEP (5-10 cm H2O) and a decreased EEFR to PEFR ratio (</=50%) demonstrated dynamic heterogeneity b

58 Likewise, APRV with an increased EEFR to PEFR ratio (50%-75%) resulted in alveolar occupancy at i

59 4 cm H2O) (P > .01) and an increased EEFR to PEFR ratio (75%) (P > .01).

60 , reducing the time at low pressure (EEFR to PEFR ratio of 75%) in the APRV group provided dynamic ho

61 reas were quantified (using PEEP and EEFR to PEFR ratio) to determine dynamic heterogeneity.

62 ostrain was minimized with an APRV T-PEFR to PEFR ratio of 75% (mean [SEM], 0.05 [0.03]) and PEEP of

63 n [SEM], 0.09 [0.08]), but an APRV T-PEFR to PEFR ratio of 75% also promoted alveolar recruitment com

64 alveolar recruitment using an APRV T-PEFR to PEFR ratio of 75% may be the mechanism of lung protectio

65 4 cm H2O) and a brief T(low) (APRV T-PEFR to PEFR ratio of 75%) reduced microstrain.

66 substudy, 421 patients (37 sites) underwent PEFR testing at baseline, 1, 6, and 24 h after randomiza

67 ; 95% CI: 2.9 to 21.2 L/min) associated with PEFR, but the previous day's ETS exposure was a risk fac

68 2.5 with FEV1 (r = -0.72, p < 0.01), O3 with PEFR (r = -0.75, p < 0.005), and PM2.5 with MMEF (r = -0