ライフサイエンスコーパス: controlled ventilation

1 igher in variable ventilation than in volume-controlled ventilation.

2 y 14% with assisted ventilation and 48% with controlled ventilation.

3 d 20% with assisted ventilation and 41% with controlled ventilation.

4 to increase and that of 2A to decrease with controlled ventilation.

5 MAF-box gene was overexpressed with controlled ventilation.

6 sitive end-expiratory pressure, and pressure-controlled ventilation.

7 observed for V(T) delivered during pressure-controlled ventilation.

8 zed in sedated critically ill patients under controlled ventilation.

9 d relative angiopoietin-1 expression (volume-controlled ventilation, 0.3 [0.2-0.5] vs variable ventil

10 protein A concentration was higher with flow-controlled ventilation (1.1 +/- 0.04 vs 1.0 +/- 0.03; p

11 tion settings returned to baseline (pressure-controlled ventilation 10 cm H2O) for 4 hours.

12 damage (median [interquartile range]: volume-controlled ventilation, 12 [11-17] vs variable ventilati

13 tric oxide concentration of 40 ppm, pressure-controlled ventilation: 14.5 to 130.5 ppm; volume-contro

14 angiopoietin-2/angiopoietin-1 ratio (volume-controlled ventilation, 2.0 [1.3-2.1] vs variable ventil

15 ly assigned to receive first either pressure-controlled ventilation 20 cm H2O for 2 hours (phase 2) o

16 p < 0.01), interleukin-6 expression (volume-controlled ventilation, 21.5 [18.3-23.3] vs variable ven

17 olled ventilation: 14.5 to 130.5 ppm; volume-controlled ventilation: 21.6 to 104.7 ppm; nitric oxide

18 tric oxide concentration of 10 ppm, pressure-controlled ventilation: 3.2 to 30.9 ppm; volume-controll

19 trolled ventilation: 3.2 to 30.9 ppm; volume-controlled ventilation: 4.5 to 27.1 ppm).

20 molecule-1 messenger RNA expression (volume-controlled ventilation, 7.7 [5.7-18.6] vs nonventilated,

21 ry pressure (PEEP) and 20 cm H2O of pressure controlled ventilation above PEEP for 2 mins to successf

22 re, admission service, and use of a pressure-controlled ventilation affected duration of mechanical v

23 be used either with pressure (PCV) or volume-controlled ventilation and continuously or only during t

24 E-cadherin expression was similar in volume-controlled ventilation and variable ventilation; in extr

25 however, is limited to patients who receive controlled ventilation and who are not breathing spontan

26 hol withdrawal, and be managed with pressure-controlled ventilation as the primary mode of mechanical

27 daptive ventilation was compared with volume-controlled ventilation at the same levels of mean airway

28 e aim of this study was to test whether flow-controlled ventilation attenuates lung injury in an anim

29 as minimally altered by helium during volume-controlled ventilation but substantially decreased durin

30 a possible target for lung protection during controlled ventilation, but its value during assisted ve

31 ression in lung tissue was reduced in volume-controlled ventilation compared with nonventilated regar

32 ation of 21 L/min and higher during pressure-controlled ventilation compared with volume-controlled v

33 d ventilation (intervention group) or volume-controlled ventilation (control group) with identical ti

34 Compared with control, flow-controlled ventilation elevated PaO2 (154 +/- 21 vs 105

35 Flow-controlled ventilation enhances lung aeration in the dep

36 ateral common carotid artery occlusion under controlled ventilation for 3, 5, and 10 min.

37 groups (n = 6) and ventilated using pressure-controlled ventilation for two consecutive periods (T1 a

38 The evaluation may include echocardiography, controlled ventilation high-resolution computed tomograp

39 reduced lung elastance compared with volume-controlled ventilation in both acute respiratory distres

40 ivered V(T) during both volume- and pressure-controlled ventilation in four ventilators commonly used

41 cur during permissive hypercapnia because of controlled ventilation in patients warrants investigatio

42 on)/positive end-expiratory pressure (volume-controlled ventilation) in a Pseudomonas aeruginosa-indu

43 Flow-controlled ventilation increased normally aerated (24% +

44 e respiratory distress syndrome, only volume-controlled ventilation increased vascular cell adhesion

45 atory distress syndrome severity, the use of controlled ventilation indicates a bias toward use in pa

46 Flow-controlled ventilation (intervention group) or volume-co

47 Recruitment by pressure-controlled ventilation is equivalent or superior to sust

48 onal 14 animals were ventilated using volume-controlled ventilation, maintaining similar time-control

49 mly assigned to receive conventional (volume-controlled ventilation, n = 6) or variable ventilation (

50 -controlled ventilation compared with volume-controlled ventilation (nitric oxide concentration of 40

51 without producing hypotension and facilitate controlled ventilation once the effects of the intubatin

52 ical service (p = .009), and use of pressure-controlled ventilation (p = .02) each affected duration

53 but substantially decreased during pressure-controlled ventilation, particularly with the Bird venti

54 led ventilation (VCV) compared with pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and with long inspiratory t

55 "Flow-controlled ventilation", providing a constant expiratory

56 The pressure-controlled ventilation RM caused a lasting increase of P

57 rrest using an original pressure- and volume-controlled ventilation strategy in rabbits.

58 This self-powered humidity-controlled ventilation system could be adapted to automa

59 ositive end-expiratory pressure, or pressure-controlled ventilation) that differed from raising posit

60 ympanic temperature 34 degrees C) to 12 hrs, controlled ventilation to 20 hrs, and intensive care to

61 er injury, the animals were placed on volume-controlled ventilation to achieve PaO2 >60 mm Hg and PaC

62 eline cardiac output) compared with pressure-controlled ventilation (to 0.68 of baseline).

63 ression synchronized ventilation, a pressure-controlled ventilation triggered by each chest compressi

64 During volume-controlled ventilation, V(T) delivered was substantially

65 of ventilation would be greatest with volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) compared with pressure-cont

66 Peak alveolar pressure during pressure-controlled ventilation was 20 cm H2O at T1 and was subse

67 hanical support used (98.6%), while pressure-controlled ventilation was the preferred mode (95.7%).

68 d adaptive ventilation, compared with volume-controlled ventilation, was associated with less lung da

69 days of assisted ventilation, and those with controlled ventilation, we assessed in vitro diaphragmat

70 All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with a tidal volume of 7 mL/kg of

71 After receiving pressure-controlled ventilation with driving pressure of 10 cm H2

72 ) with a limited peak pressure, and pressure-controlled ventilation with increased PEEP and a fixed d

73 Using pressure-controlled ventilation with oxygen, ventilator settings

74 -controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure

75 -controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure

76 mals had bacteremia counts lower than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure

77 -controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar positive end-release

78 e-controlled adaptive ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation with similar positive end-release

79 esophageal pressure during short periods of controlled ventilation, with Vt increments ranging betwe