ライフサイエンスコーパス: lung compliance

1 e activity, cytokine contents, and decreased lung compliance.

2 s including airway obstruction and increased lung compliance.

3 ation and lung histology) and improvement in lung compliance.

4 lar apoptosis and a decrease in quasi-static lung compliance.

5 eased the respiratory compliance by reducing lung compliance.

6 iratory distress syndrome was related to low lung compliance.

7 m inducing perivascular cuffs and decreasing lung compliance.

8 nd airway resistance as well as decreases in lung compliance.

9 t alveolar edema, are sufficient to decrease lung compliance.

10 ll tolerated with minimal effects on dynamic lung compliance.

11 , diffuse pulmonary infiltrates, and altered lung compliance.

12 id not change gas exchange, hemodynamics, or lung compliance.

13 hese responses likely contribute to impaired lung compliance.

14 and exhibited normal oxygenation and dynamic lung compliance.

15 g wet and dry weights and decreased specific lung compliance.

16 irway pressure (20, 30, and 40 cm H2O), test lung compliance (10, 30, and 50 mL/cm H2O), endotracheal

17 +/- 35 vs. 267 +/- 98; p = .15), and static lung compliance (30.9 +/- 13.5 vs. 38.5 +/- 11.7; p = .2

18 g of face mask, manikin head, training lung (lung compliance, 50 mL/cm H2O; airway resistance, 5 cm H

19 f survival and quality of life influenced by lung compliance, albeit while accelerating disease progr

20 Lung compliance, alveolar-arterial oxygen difference, an

21 group (406+/-63 vs 148+/-33 mm Hg, P=0.01); lung compliance and airway resistance did not differ sig

22 ma, as evidenced by attenuation of increased lung compliance and alveolar size.

23 Survivors had increased lung compliance and decreased elastance.

24 injury, with preserved gas exchange, better lung compliance and histology scores, and decreased lung

25 ry in WT mice was characterized by decreased lung compliance and increased protein and cytokine conce

26 and a decrease in PaO2, a decrease in static lung compliance and inhibition of surfactant function.

27 PG490-88 improved static lung compliance and injury scores, reduced bronchioalveo

28 certain phospholipids had similar activity (lung compliance and lung pressure-volume behavior) to ra

29 healing response, as it results in worsening lung compliance and oxygenation.

30 at resulted in significant decreases in both lung compliance and oxygenation.

31 opterin was associated with better preserved lung compliance and PaO2/FIO2 ratio, which were associat

32 gous mice (Hhip(+/-)), we observed increased lung compliance and spontaneous emphysema in Hhip(+/-) m

33 Lung compliance and the oxygenation index were measured

34 The dynamic lung compliance and the postventilatory expansion of lun

35 ved lung function (specifically quasi-static lung compliance and tissue elastance) and reduced mucus

36 ow, and tidal volume, and calculated dynamic lung compliance and total lung resistance.

37 We measured the effect on lung compliance and whether positive end-expiratory pres

38 monary function (lung resistance and dynamic lung compliance), and inflammatory cell infiltration.

39 y resistance and decreases in minute volume, lung compliance, and alveolar function.

40 siveness, alveolar simplification, decreased lung compliance, and decreased lung angiogenesis.

41 xchange, increased pulmonary edema, abnormal lung compliance, and extensive airway obstruction.

42 positive end-expiratory pressures), reduced lung compliance, and high lung injury scores.

43 l animals include airspace collapse, reduced lung compliance, and impaired gas exchange.

44 reduced morbidity and viral burden, improved lung compliance, and increased CD8(+) T cell numbers in

45 mation and injury, decreased oxygenation and lung compliance, and increased respirations.

46 ses mortality, promotes lung injury, reduces lung compliance, and increases degradation of lung elast

47 -expiratory pressure, the decrease in static lung compliance, and the extent of infiltrates on the ch

48 monary function, including Pao2/Fio2, static lung compliance, and time to meeting weaning criteria.

49 However, the loss of static expiratory lung compliance appears partly ameliorated by applicatio

50 SURF without PEEP further decreased lung compliance as compared with PMA only.

51 a series of different airway resistances and lung compliances as would be seen in different types of

52 rious combinations of airway resistances and lung compliances, auto-PEEP can be generated to substant

53 e most predictive of lung volume: a) dynamic lung compliance; b) the slope of phase 3; c) the slope o

54 predictive of lung volume change: a) dynamic lung compliance; b) the slope of phase III; c) the slope

55 ctant, a lipoprotein complex which increases lung compliance by reducing alveolar surface tension.

56 Respiratory system compliance (Crs) and lung compliance (C(L)) were calculated from airway openi

57 g pressure (DP(TP))-the quotient of V(T) and lung compliance (C(L)), in response to intra-abdominal h

58 cessfully extubated had significantly better lung compliance (Cdyn: 0.59 +/- 0.91 versus 0.39 +/- 0.1

59 e dismutase (SOD) treatment on gas exchange, lung compliance (CL), and pulmonary vascular resistance

60 ed substantial and significant impairment in lung compliance compared with control littermates receiv

61 exaggerated lung fibrosis and reduced static lung compliance compared with controls.

62 erial pulmonary function tests, blood gases, lung compliance, computed tomography (CT) imaging, and q

63 final plateau pressure (Pp), and peripheral lung compliance (Cp).

64 Airway opening pressure (P-Flex), static lung compliance (Crs), and trapped gas volume (TGV) were

65 When total static lung compliance decreased to 0.15 mL (cm H2O)(-1) x kg(-

66 Lung compliance did not differ between groups at the pos

67 cture is destroyed, which leads to decreased lung compliance, disrupted gas exchange, and ultimately

68 Lung compliance dose-dependently decreased after thapsig

69 Changes in dynamic lung compliance during inspiration and expiration cannot

70 Lung compliance during mechanical ventilation was impair

71 90% O2 resulted in the restoration of normal lung compliance, elastance, and pressure-volume loops (t

72 (6) CFU) rapidly lost weight, had diminished lung compliance, experienced lung hemorrhage, and respon

73 coil pressure at total lung capacity, static lung compliance, expiratory flow rates, and lung volumes

74 Lung compliance, hemodynamics, right ventricular heart m

75 and is characterized by a virtual absence of lung compliance, highly disorganized lamellar bodies, an

76 Static lung compliance improved over time in the prone group (3

77 es was indicated by improved oxygenation and lung compliance in FG-4095-treated newborns.

78 tation lung, and significantly reduced total lung compliance in late gestation embryos that lack lymp

79 phospholipid pool sizes and composition, and lung compliance in SP-A(-/-) mice were unaltered.

80 n gas exchange and a significant decrease in lung compliance in the juvenile rabbit model.

81 Dynamic lung compliance increased from 38 (24-64) mL/cm H2O at b

82 o tidal volume (VD/VT) decreased, and static lung compliance increased with PEEP at LIP +1 cm H2O (p

83 l volume to DeltaPes (an estimate of dynamic lung compliance) increased (P < 0.05); finally, ventilat

84 a), lung pathology, pulmonary edema, reduced lung compliance, increased basal airway resistance, and

85 ncluded decreased pulmonary gas exchange and lung compliance, increased pulmonary edema, and extensiv

86 ncluded decreased pulmonary gas exchange and lung compliance, increased pulmonary edema, and inflamma

87 me, respiratory rate, minute volume, dynamic lung compliance, inspiratory resistance, and blood gases

88 here was no difference in lung resistance or lung compliance measured by body plethysmography between

89 tion, but they demonstrated neither abnormal lung compliance nor increased respiratory rate and displ

90 and absence of plasma inhibitors, but whole lung compliance of the SP-A(-/-,D/A) animals was not dif

91 e.g., increased airway resistance, decreased lung compliance, or both.

92 okines (interleukin [IL] 6 and IL-8), static lung compliance, or lung histology.

93 al lung resistance and a decrease in dynamic lung compliance (P < 0.05).

94 Final static lung compliance (p =.0002) and Pao2/Fio2 (p =.001) decre

95 Outcome measures included lung compliance, Pao /Fio ratio, wet/dry lung weight, an

96 creased capillary permeability, and improved lung compliance, particularly at 12-hr storage times.

97 IIai dramatically protected gas exchange and lung compliance, prevented lung edema and pulmonary hype

98 capacity was associated with a reduction in lung compliance (r(2) = 0.43; p = 0.03) and isotime esop

99 Static lung compliance significantly increased postrandomizatio

100 most dramatically characterized by decreased lung compliance that was associated with an intense mono

101 ic responses (airway hyperresponsiveness and lung compliance) to Mp infection were more severely affe

102 13 to increase lung size, alveolar size, and lung compliance, to stimulate pulmonary inflammation, hy

103 ctant proteins SpC, SpB, and SpA, decline of lung compliance, transient fibrosis, and eventually emph

104 eduction in movement, and a fall in specific lung compliance unseen in conventional mouse asthma mode

105 In subjects who had normal lung compliance values during spontaneous breathing (C(L

106 asurements included physiological variables (lung compliance, vascular resistance, oxygenation capaci

107 ility to modify lipid properties and restore lung compliance was investigated with circular dichroism

108 Lung compliance was measured during ventilation througho

109 Specific lung compliance was significantly increased in lungs of

110 Indirect measurements of lung compliance were consistent with a stiffening of the

111 Pulmonary inflammation and quasi-static lung compliance were largely unaffected by neutralizatio

112 e, pulmonary vascular resistance, and static lung compliance were measured at baseline and after mode

113 after PMA injury causes marked reductions in lung compliance when no PEEP is coadministered.

114 r bundle and the lung parenchyma, decreasing lung compliance without impacting central venous pressur