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

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

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

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

7 %) progressed to acute lung injury requiring positive pressure ventilation.

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

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

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

11 design on CO2 rebreathing during noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.

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

13 the lung damage associated with conventional positive pressure ventilation.

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

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

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

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

18 stroke volume variation during intermittent positive-pressure ventilation.

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

20 with an inspiratory threshold valve between positive pressure ventilations.

21 6 minutes at 100 compressions per minute and positive pressure ventilation (100% O2) with a compressi

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

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

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

25 < 0.001), with increased use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (5% in 1998 to 14% in 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

32 Invasive positive pressure ventilation and renal replacement ther

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

34 Both intermittent positive-pressure ventilation and bilevel provided simil

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

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

37 32.7 (30.4/33.4) (p = 0.021 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 27.0 (24.5/27.7) (p =

38 29.1 (25.6/37.1) (p = 0.574 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 28.7 (24.2/36.5) (p =

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

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

41 7.35 (7.29/7.37) (p = 0.645 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 7.27 (7.17/7.31) (p =

42 7.34 (7.33/7.39) (p = 0.189 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation) and 7.35 (7.34/7.36) (p =

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

44 7.27 (7.17/7.31) (p = 0.645 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation); and chest compression sy

45 28.7 (24.2/36.5) (p = 0.721 vs intermittent positive-pressure ventilation); and chest compression sy

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

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

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

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

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

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

52 = 4.7), history of bronchiolitis (OR = 4.7), positive pressure ventilation at birth (OR = 3.3), low m

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

62 Positive pressure ventilation exposes the lung to mechan

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

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

65 3, were intubated and initially managed with positive pressure ventilation for severe respiratory fai

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

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

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

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

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

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

72 Both heliox and bilevel positive pressure ventilation have demonstrated clinical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

86 Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation may be considered a first

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

96 Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is usually applied

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

117 Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation was superior to continuous

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

119 Positive pressure ventilation with large VTs has been sh

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

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

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