A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Biomechanical Implications of Mass Loading in a Swine Model of Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

In obesity, excess weight of the chest and abdomen (mass loading) decreases lung volume and can worsen acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). We investigated whether positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) fully reverses the effects of mass loading on lung volume and respiratory mechanics in an AHRF swine model. Eighteen Yorkshire pigs were studied: six healthy, eight pre- and post-injury, and four post-injury only. We randomly tested three mass loading conditions: without mass loading, with abdominal loading (6kg weight), and with combined abdominal and chest mass loading (12kg total weight). We performed a recruitment maneuver in each condition followed by a decremental PEEP trial and identified the best-PEEP as that with the greatest respiratory system compliance (C). Airway pressure, esophageal pressure, and thoracic impedance by electrical impedance tomography) were continuously monitored. After lung injury, best-PEEP increased with loading. C at best-PEEP decreased from 20.6 ± 3.4 ml/cmHO without loading to 17.7 ± 3.0 ml/cmHO with abdominal loading (mean difference 2.9, 95% CI 1.6-4.2) and to 14.2 ± 2.8 ml/cmHO with abdominal and chest loading (mean difference 6.3, 95% CI 5.0-7.7). Any amount of loading decreased end-expiratory lung volume assessed by computed tomography (CT) at best-PEEP and PEEP 3 cmHO. Combined abdominal-chest loading decreased the vertical lung dimension on CT compared to unloaded and abdominal loading at both levels of PEEP. With mass loading, PEEP did not restore values of C and lung aeration to their unloaded values. In AHRF with mass loading, geometrical constraints may limit PEEP efficacy even when optimally titrated.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00377.2025DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mass loading
32
loading
16
lung volume
12
abdominal loading
12
mass
8
swine model
8
acute hypoxemic
8
hypoxemic respiratory
8
respiratory failure
8
abdominal chest
8

Similar Publications