Roberto Martínez-Alejos, Emeline Fresnel, Alice Vuillermoz, François Beloncle, Marius Lebret
{"title":"机械充气-排气设备提供的实时数据的准确性。","authors":"Roberto Martínez-Alejos, Emeline Fresnel, Alice Vuillermoz, François Beloncle, Marius Lebret","doi":"10.4187/respcare.12221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is crucial to assist patients with impaired cough, especially those with neuromuscular diseases. Despite recent advancements that enable real-time display of peak expiratory flow (PEF) and inspiratory volume, accurately monitoring these parameters with MI-E devices during treatment can still present challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A bench study that used a mechanical lung connected to 3 MI-E devices (EOVE-70; E-70 and Comfort Cough II) was conducted to evaluate PEF and inspiratory volume monitoring accuracy. Two clinical conditions were tested, low and normal compliance, with 6 different MI-E settings tested: +20/-20, +30/-30, +40/-40, +40/-50, +40/-60, and +40/-70 cm H<sub>2</sub>O. PEF (L/min) and inspiratory volume (mL) displayed on the screen were recorded cycle by cycle, while a pneumotachograph connected to the mechanical lung was used to measure the actual PEF and inspiratory volume for data comparison. Flow bias was assessed by calculating the difference (PEF - peak inspiratory flow) and ratio (PEF to peak inspiratory flow) between flows.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All devices systematically underestimated PEF, with device A showing the smallest estimation error (-7.4 [-10.1; -6] %). Devices B and C exhibited larger errors (-26.5 [-29.2; -25.6] and (-29.9 [-30.7; -28.7] %, respectively). All the devices underestimated inspiratory volume, with device B showing the smallest estimation error (-15.1 [-21.2; -12.3] %). Device A exhibited a significantly larger error (-26.9 [-30.3; -24.8] %). The error from device C (-17.7 [-34.5; -13.8] %) was not statistically different from device B. Device type, high pressure settings (> +40/-40 cm H<sub>2</sub>O), and a lung model compliance of 60 mL/cm H<sub>2</sub>O were the main contributors to error in estimating PEF and inspiratory volume. Finally, we observed differences of PEF-to-peak inspiratory flow ratio and PEF minus peak inspiratory flow differences achieved.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study highlighted consistent underestimation of PEF and inspiratory volume across MI-E devices. Improving device monitoring is essential for guiding MI-E therapy and ensuring patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Real-Time Data Provided by Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices.\",\"authors\":\"Roberto Martínez-Alejos, Emeline Fresnel, Alice Vuillermoz, François Beloncle, Marius Lebret\",\"doi\":\"10.4187/respcare.12221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is crucial to assist patients with impaired cough, especially those with neuromuscular diseases. Despite recent advancements that enable real-time display of peak expiratory flow (PEF) and inspiratory volume, accurately monitoring these parameters with MI-E devices during treatment can still present challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A bench study that used a mechanical lung connected to 3 MI-E devices (EOVE-70; E-70 and Comfort Cough II) was conducted to evaluate PEF and inspiratory volume monitoring accuracy. Two clinical conditions were tested, low and normal compliance, with 6 different MI-E settings tested: +20/-20, +30/-30, +40/-40, +40/-50, +40/-60, and +40/-70 cm H<sub>2</sub>O. PEF (L/min) and inspiratory volume (mL) displayed on the screen were recorded cycle by cycle, while a pneumotachograph connected to the mechanical lung was used to measure the actual PEF and inspiratory volume for data comparison. Flow bias was assessed by calculating the difference (PEF - peak inspiratory flow) and ratio (PEF to peak inspiratory flow) between flows.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All devices systematically underestimated PEF, with device A showing the smallest estimation error (-7.4 [-10.1; -6] %). Devices B and C exhibited larger errors (-26.5 [-29.2; -25.6] and (-29.9 [-30.7; -28.7] %, respectively). All the devices underestimated inspiratory volume, with device B showing the smallest estimation error (-15.1 [-21.2; -12.3] %). Device A exhibited a significantly larger error (-26.9 [-30.3; -24.8] %). The error from device C (-17.7 [-34.5; -13.8] %) was not statistically different from device B. Device type, high pressure settings (> +40/-40 cm H<sub>2</sub>O), and a lung model compliance of 60 mL/cm H<sub>2</sub>O were the main contributors to error in estimating PEF and inspiratory volume. Finally, we observed differences of PEF-to-peak inspiratory flow ratio and PEF minus peak inspiratory flow differences achieved.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study highlighted consistent underestimation of PEF and inspiratory volume across MI-E devices. Improving device monitoring is essential for guiding MI-E therapy and ensuring patient safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Respiratory care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Respiratory care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.12221\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.12221","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:机械充气-排气(MI-E)对于辅助咳嗽受损患者,尤其是神经肌肉疾病患者至关重要。尽管最近取得了进步,能够实时显示呼气峰值流速(PEF)和吸气量,但在治疗过程中使用 MI-E 设备准确监测这些参数仍是一项挑战:一项工作台研究使用了与 3 种 MI-E 设备(EOVE-70、E-70 和 Comfort Cough II)相连的机械肺,以评估呼气峰值流速和吸气量监测的准确性。测试了低顺应性和正常顺应性两种临床条件,并测试了 6 种不同的 MI-E 设置:+20/-20、+30/-30、+40/-40、+40/-50、+40/-60 和 +40/-70 厘米 H2O。逐周期记录屏幕上显示的 PEF(升/分钟)和吸气量(毫升),同时使用与机械肺相连的气压计测量实际 PEF 和吸气量,以进行数据比较。通过计算流量之间的差值(PEF - 吸气峰值流量)和比率(PEF 与吸气峰值流量)来评估流量偏差:结果:所有设备都系统性地低估了 PEF,其中设备 A 的估计误差最小(-7.4 [-10.1; -6]%)。设备 B 和 C 的误差较大(分别为 -26.5 [-29.2; -25.6] % 和 (-29.9 [-30.7; -28.7] %)。所有设备都低估了吸气量,设备 B 的估计误差最小(-15.1 [-21.2; -12.3]%)。设备 A 的误差明显更大(-26.9 [-30.3; -24.8]%)。设备 C 的误差(-17.7 [-34.5; -13.8]%)与设备 B 没有统计学差异。设备类型、高压设置(> +40/-40 cm H2O)和肺模型顺应性为 60 mL/cm H2O 是造成 PEF 和吸气量估计误差的主要原因。最后,我们观察到了 PEF 与吸气峰值流量比值和 PEF 减吸气峰值流量差值的差异:我们的研究突出表明,所有 MI-E 设备都一致低估了 PEF 和吸气量。改进设备监测对于指导 MI-E 治疗和确保患者安全至关重要。
Accuracy of Real-Time Data Provided by Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices.
Background: Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is crucial to assist patients with impaired cough, especially those with neuromuscular diseases. Despite recent advancements that enable real-time display of peak expiratory flow (PEF) and inspiratory volume, accurately monitoring these parameters with MI-E devices during treatment can still present challenges.
Methods: A bench study that used a mechanical lung connected to 3 MI-E devices (EOVE-70; E-70 and Comfort Cough II) was conducted to evaluate PEF and inspiratory volume monitoring accuracy. Two clinical conditions were tested, low and normal compliance, with 6 different MI-E settings tested: +20/-20, +30/-30, +40/-40, +40/-50, +40/-60, and +40/-70 cm H2O. PEF (L/min) and inspiratory volume (mL) displayed on the screen were recorded cycle by cycle, while a pneumotachograph connected to the mechanical lung was used to measure the actual PEF and inspiratory volume for data comparison. Flow bias was assessed by calculating the difference (PEF - peak inspiratory flow) and ratio (PEF to peak inspiratory flow) between flows.
Results: All devices systematically underestimated PEF, with device A showing the smallest estimation error (-7.4 [-10.1; -6] %). Devices B and C exhibited larger errors (-26.5 [-29.2; -25.6] and (-29.9 [-30.7; -28.7] %, respectively). All the devices underestimated inspiratory volume, with device B showing the smallest estimation error (-15.1 [-21.2; -12.3] %). Device A exhibited a significantly larger error (-26.9 [-30.3; -24.8] %). The error from device C (-17.7 [-34.5; -13.8] %) was not statistically different from device B. Device type, high pressure settings (> +40/-40 cm H2O), and a lung model compliance of 60 mL/cm H2O were the main contributors to error in estimating PEF and inspiratory volume. Finally, we observed differences of PEF-to-peak inspiratory flow ratio and PEF minus peak inspiratory flow differences achieved.
Conclusions: Our study highlighted consistent underestimation of PEF and inspiratory volume across MI-E devices. Improving device monitoring is essential for guiding MI-E therapy and ensuring patient safety.
期刊介绍:
RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.