ライフサイエンスコーパス: peak flow

1 /- 0.20 mA; P < 0.05) without differences in peak flow.

2 ociated with significant acute decrements in peak flow.

3 y controlled asthma defined by a decrease in peak flow.

4 29 to 17.14), and mean difference in evening peak flow (-0.50; -17.42 to 12.86).

5 ; 47% wheezing; 46% chest pain; 42% abnormal peak flow), 334 (84%) provided cough duration and 369 (9

6 me was the most important determinant of the peak flow achieved and volume expelled during coughing,

7 ase significantly after medical therapy, but peak flow after the high level of exercise increased by

8 k of an exacerbation monitored their morning peak flow and asthma symptoms for up to 12 months.

9 nt differences between the groups in evening peak flow and in the short-term bronchodilator response

10 sure to ETS was associated with a decline in peak flow and increases in respiratory symptoms and use

11 All participants were assessed with home peak flow and symptom monitoring, spirometry, and serial

12 e is the most important determinant of cough peak flow and volume expelled in healthy individuals.

13 ximum precipitation scenario due to elevated peak flows and a resulting 98% reduction in egg-to-fry s

14 act infection symptoms, duration of abnormal peak flow, antibiotic use, and adverse events.

15 act infection symptoms, duration of abnormal peak flow, antibiotic use, or nonserious adverse events.

16 However, peak flow, bronchodilator use, and spirometry did not ch

17 In the postcold L-ARG group, ACh increased peak flow, but NP did not increase flow in other cold gr

18 levels at which V(I)max first increased and peaked (flow capture and peak flow thresholds), and by t

19 morning (8:00 A.M.) to afternoon (5:00 P.M.) peak flow change on O3 indicated pulmonary function redu

20 Subjects recorded symptoms and peak flow daily; and they underwent spirometry, methacho

21 scores were higher (worse) in patients whose peak flow decreased, who used more rescue medications, o

22 Outcome measures were symptoms and peak flow diaries.

23 ollapsibility; (3) reflex increases in flow (peak flow increase from challenge breaths 1-5 [mean+/-SD

24 including resolution of overlapped HPLC-DAD peaks, flow injection analysis data, and batch reaction

25 aortic peak velocity divided by the time to peak flow; LVOT(Acc) was compared with LV maximal elasta

26 rter duration of symptoms and slightly lower peak flows (mean, 45% vs. 49% of predicted; p = .006) an

27 Symptom scores and peak flow measurement were recorded daily.

28 cations in the performance of spirometry and peak flow measurements, and indicate the importance of s

29 Peak flow-mediated dilation decreased by 43% after ische

30 Peak flow-mediated dilation was similar, but the duratio

31 We assessed pulmonary function using a peak flow meter to measure FVC in both groups of patient

32 onitoring control group (n = 363) received a peak flow meter, instructions about its use, and monthly

33 and immediately downstream to a mini-Wright peak flow meter.

34 or a 2-wk period using a standard MiniWright peak flow meter.

35 ic studies, information about performance of peak flow meters (PFM) under field conditions is lacking

36 usual care group (n = 303) received neither peak flow meters nor instructions in their use; during m

37 nd measured PEF (peak expiratory flow) using peak flow meters.

38 re but provided little benefit compared with peak flow monitoring alone.

39 Peak flow monitoring has no advantage over symptom monit

40 toring, or between twice-daily and as-needed peak flow monitoring in the primary or secondary study o

41 Nasal inspiratory peak flow monitoring was less sensitive to obstruction c

42 During peak flow, most patients in groups 1 and 2, but fewer in

43 When peak flow or symptoms started to deteriorate, participan

44 ted with diastolic function, measured as E/A peak flow (P < 0.050 for all linear models).

45 ight, weight, asthma diagnosis and symptoms, peak flow (PF), spirometry, serum IgE levels and white b

46 l >1.4 ng/ml (HR = 2.8, 95% CI: 1.6, 4.7), a peak flow rate <12 ml/second (HR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1, 3.4

47 low shape provided an accurate estimation of peak flow rate (+/- 2%).

48 atory flow falls below a set fraction of the peak flow rate (flow cutoff); the ventilator then cycles

49 ozone was correlated with reduced growth in peak flow rate (p = 0.006).

50 n equal numbers to either use of symptoms or peak flow rate (twice daily or "as needed") for asthma m

51 deltaPtm', was then used to describe how the peak flow rate (Vmax) depends on preoperative Gu, P TLC,

52 We found no significant differences between peak flow rate and symptom monitoring, or between twice-

53 and varying driving pressures so that actual peak flow rate could be determined from the known effect

54 The frequency of breathing and peak flow rate of exhaled air are necessary parameters t

55 which could easily follow the frequency and peak flow rate of the human breathing.

56 ACMV breaths (VT, 1.3 or 2.1 times control; peak flow rate, 30-40 l min-1; inspiratory time, +/- 0.3

57 L to 0.5 L, partly in an effort to decrease peak flow rate, and therefore, to minimize stomach infla

58 uity equation=left ventricular outflow tract peak flow rate/aortic peak velocity.

59 itative LUTS: OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.04, 3.82; peak flow rate: OR = 2.45, 95% CI: 0.73, 8.25).

60 val (CI): 1.18, 3.85) and rapid decreases in peak flow rates (OR = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.09, 5.92) compared

61 s by the color Doppler method and the actual peak flow rates (Q = 13a + 1.0, r = 0.95, p < 0.0001, SE

62 vels, and LUTS as well as rapid decreases in peak flow rates (through 2005) in a population-based coh

63 ted every two to three weeks on the basis of peak flow rates and symptoms.

64 howing a high correlation between calculated peak flow rates by the color Doppler method and the actu

65 es in irritative LUTS and rapid decreases in peak flow rates may be due to inflammatory processes.

66 pharmaceutical care had significantly higher peak flow rates than the usual care group (P =.02) but n

67 ups in the use of medical care, symptoms, or peak flow rates.

68 isturbance (p = 0.101), morning or afternoon peak-flow rates (p = 0.424 and 0.679), or rescue medicat

69 t-symptom scores, twice-daily measurement of peak-flow rates, daily medication scores, monthly spirom

70 defined as a 15% or greater increase in mean peak flow readings, there were four responders to montel

71 from unstimulated levels at flow capture to peak flow thresholds (215 +/- 21 to 509 +/- 37 ml/s; mea

72 first increased and peaked (flow capture and peak flow thresholds), and by the V(I)max increase from

73 nges in the 30-y return level of 5-d average peak flows under representative concentration pathway RC

74 ak expiratory flow (PEF) monitoring, diurnal peak flow variability (dPFV, an indicator of airway hype

75 rrent asthma (P for interaction = 0.004) and peak flow variability (P for interaction = 0.04).

76 t age 11 or 13 (p = 0.0002); at age 11 their peak flow variability and bronchodilator responsiveness

77 I, there was no difference in asthma risk or peak flow variability between active smokers and nonsmok

78 Peak flow variability was assessed at age 26 and express

79 on, bronchodilator responsiveness, and daily peak flow variability were measured at 11 yr of age.

80 ficant differences between the two groups in peak flow variability, forced expiratory volume in one s

81 iated with increased current adult asthma or peak flow variability.

82 t (RR 3.7, p < 0.001), left atrial appendage peak flow velocities < or = 20 cm/s (RR 1.7, p = 0.008)

83 Poststenotic Doppler average peak flow velocities (APV; cm/s) and coronary flow veloc

84 Vessel density, peak flow velocities, and resistive indexes were compare

85 l intravascular ultrasound, average coronary peak flow velocity (APV) by intravascular Doppler veloci

86 low signal within the shunt, (b) the maximum peak flow velocity (Vmax) measured at the midportion of

87 rences in indexed effective orifice area and peak flow velocity in favor of the stentless valve, ther

88 se in cross-sectional area, average coronary peak flow velocity, and calculated volumetric coronary b

89 se in cross-sectional area, average coronary peak flow velocity, and coronary blood flow.

90 ; P < 0.05) and the stimulation amplitude at peak flow was lower (1.23 +/- 0.10 vs. 1.80 +/- 0.20 mA;

91 There was no decline in peak flow with regular use of albuterol in patients who