Compensation for Increase in Respiratory Workload during Mechanical Ventilation: Pressure-Support versus Proportional-Assist Ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variation in respiratory impedance may occur in mechanically ventilated patients. During pressure-targeted ventilatory support, this may lead to patient-ventilator asynchrony. We assessed the hypothesis that during pressure-support ventilation (PSV), preservation of minute ventilation (V E) consequent to added mechanical loads would result in an increase in respiratory rate (RR) due to the large reduction in tidal volume (VT). WITH proportional-assist ventilation (PAV), preservation of V E would occur through the preservation of VT, with a smaller effect on RR. We anticipated that this compensatory strategy would result in greater patient comfort and a reduce work of breathing. An increase in respiratory impedance was obtained by chest and abdominal binding in 10 patients during weaning from mechanical ventilation. V E remained constant in both ventilatory modes after chest and abdominal compression. During PSV, this maintenance of VE was obtained through a 58 +/- 3% increase in RR that compensated for a 29 +/- 2% reduction in VT. The magnitudes of the reduction in VT (10 +/- 3%) and of the increase in RR (14 +/- 2%) were smaller (p < 0. 001) during PAV. During both PSV and PAV, chest and abdominal compression caused increases in both the pressure-time product (PTP) of the diaphragm per minute (142.9 +/- 26.9 cm H(2)O. s/min, PSV, and 117.6 +/- 16.4 cm H(2)O. s/min, PAV) and per liter (13.4 +/- 2.5 cm H(2)O. s/L, PSV, and 9.6 +/- 0.7 cm H(2)O. s/L, PAV). These increments were greater (p < 0.001) during PSV than during PAV. The capability of keeping VT and V E constant through increases in inspiratory effort after increases in mechanical loads is relatively preserved only during PAV. The ventilatory response to an added respiratory load during PSV required greater muscle effort than during PAV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".