The Experts below are selected from a list of 1176 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Guilherme Fregonezi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
agreement between clinical and non clinical digital manometer for assessing maximal respiratory pressures in healthy subjects
2019Co-Authors: Rodrigo Torrescastro, Nicolas Sepulvedacaceres, Rodrigo Garridobaquedano, Marisol Barrospoblete, Matias Ottoyanez, Luis Vasconcello, Roberto Verauribe, Homero Puppo, Guilherme FregoneziAbstract:Measurement of respiratory muscles strength such as maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximal expiratory pressure (MEP) are used to detect, diagnose and treat respiratory weakness. However, devices used for these measurements are not widely available and are costly. Currently, the use of a digital manometer is recommended. In industry, several inexpensive devices are available, but these have not been validated for clinical use. Our objective was to determine the agreement between maximal respiratory pressures obtained with a clinical digital manometer and that with a non-clinical digital manometer in healthy volunteers. We assessed the height, weight, lung function, MIP, and MEP of healthy volunteers. To compare pressures obtained by each type of digital manometer, a parallel approach configuration was used. The agreement was measured with the Intraclass Coefficient Correlation (ICC) and the Bland-Altman plot. Twenty-seven participants (14 men) were recruited with a median age of 22 (range: 21-23) years. Each participant underwent three measurements to give a total of 81 measurements. The mean MIPs were 90.8 ± 26.4 (SEM 2.9) and 91.1 ± 26.4 (SEM 2.9) cmH2O for the clinical and non-clinical digital Manometers, respectively. The mean MEPs were 113.8 ± 40.4 (SEM 4.5) and 114.5 ± 40.5 (SEM 4.5) cmH2O for the clinical and non-clinical digital Manometers, respectively. We obtained an ICC of 0.998 (IC 0.997-0.999) for MIP and 0.999 (IC 0.998-0.999) for MEP. There is a high agreement in the values obtained for MIP and MEP between clinical and non-clinical digital Manometers in healthy volunteers. Further validation at lower pressures and safety profiling among human subjects is needed.
C Y Liu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
twin wire resistance probe manometer for very low differential pressure measurement
1991Co-Authors: C Y LiuAbstract:A precision twin-wire resistance-probe manometer has been developed for the purpose of measuring very low differential pressure. From the extensive performance tests conducted, it was found that the output voltage from the manometer is linearly proportional to the difference in pressure. Several ranges of calibration were made; the accuracy of the output depends upon the range and sensitivity setting of the manometer. For the range of 0-0.2 mm of water with a sensitivity setting of 1000 mVlmm, the accuracy of ±0.02 Pa (about ± 0. 002 mm of water) was achieved.
Eoin Obrien - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
will mercury Manometers soon be obsolete
1995Co-Authors: Eoin ObrienAbstract:After a century of clinical use, the mercury sphygmomanometric technique of blood pressure (BP) measurement is under threat. There are three reasons for this : mercury is likely to be banned from hospital use because of the danger of toxicity, accurate automated devices are now available to replace the mercury sphygmomanometer and with the advent of 24 h ambulatory BP measurement into clinical practice, more reliance is being placed on BP behaviour rather than on casual measurements. The passing of the mercury sphygmomanometer from clinical practice raises two issues that merit deliberation. Without the mercury standard with which to compare measurements generated by algorithmic interpretation of BP, the clinician is dependent on the consistency and accuracy of such algorithms. If the millimetre of mercury is no longer the unit of measurement for BP, it will soon be replaced by the kilopascal thereby introducing, at least temporarily, the potential for uncertainty in clinical judgement.
Thomas F Luscher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
accuracy of a new wrist cuff oscillometric blood pressure device comparisons with intraarterial and mercury manometer measurements
1998Co-Authors: S Watson, R R Wenzel, C Di Matteo, Bernhard Meier, Thomas F LuscherAbstract:Accurate measurement of arterial blood pressure is of great importance for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. Because of the chronic nature of antihypertensive drug therapy, the involvement of the patient in blood pressure control is desirable. Such an involvement, however, is only feasible if simple, user-friendly, and precise blood pressure measurement devices are available. In this study we tested a new wrist cuff oscillometric blood pressure measurement device in 100 consecutive patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Blood pressures were simultaneously taken intraarterially (axillary artery) and with a mercury manometer and stethoscope or noninvasive measurement device (OMRON R3). Intraarterial measurements were directly compared with two measurements taken in random order with either an arm cuff mercury manometer or the wrist cuff device. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure as assessed with the mercury manometer was higher, especially when compared with the intraarterial and the wrist cuff values, which were comparable. Correlations of blood pressure values with intraarterial measurement were 0.86 systolic and 0.75 diastolic (P < .01) for the wrist cuff and 0.84 systolic (P < .01) and 0.59 diastolic (P < .05) for the mercury manometer measurements. Reproducibility of both measurements was good for the wrist cuff device ([systolic/diastolic]: r = 0.94/0.92; P < .01) and the mercury manometer (r = 0.97/0.88; P < .01). Both methods overestimated high diastolic values, whereas only the wrist cuff underestimated high systolic values. Thus, the new oscillometric wrist cuff blood pressure measurement device measures arterial blood pressure with great accuracy and reproducibility. As compared with intraarterial values, the wrist cuff device overestimated high diastolic and underestimated high systolic blood pressure values. Blood pressure values as measured by the mercury manometer were higher than intraarterial values and those of the wrist cuff. Both noninvasive devices overestimated high diastolic values.
Steven A Sahn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
pleural manometry technique and clinical implications
2004Co-Authors: Peter Doelken, John T Huggins, Nicholas J Pastis, Steven A SahnAbstract:Introduction: Pleural manometry during large-volume thoracentesis can prevent the development of excessively negative pleural pressures, which have been associated with re-expansion pulmonary edema; can diagnose an unexpandable lung; and can predict pleurodesis success. We currently perform pleural manometry simultaneously with both a vertical-column water manometer with an interposed resistive element, and a hemodynamic transducer connected to a standard physiologic system. We present the technique as well as the advantages and disadvantages of both systems in measuring pleural liquid pressures. Technique: A flexible thoracentesis catheter is inserted in the most dependent portion of the pleural effusion. The water manometer consists of two lengths of IV tubing connected through a 22-gauge needle inserted into an injection terminal. The system is connected to the zeroing port of the pressure transducer, and both are carefully purged of air. The electronic system is zeroed at the level the thoracentesis catheter is introduced into the patient. Measurements are performed initially and after each 250 mL of fluid that is withdrawn. Accuracy of the water manometer: Forty consecutive patients who underwent therapeutic thoracentesis had pressure measurements. Pleural fluid removed ranged from 50 to 4,200 mL (mean, 1,445 mL). A total of 291 pressure measurements were acquired and analyzed. Mean pleural liquid pressure obtained by the water manometer had a strong positive correlation with the values obtained by a standard physiologic system ( r = 0.97, p Conclusion: An overdamped water manometer is a valid method to measure mean pleural liquid pressure. Coughing invalidates pressure measurements with the water manometer; however, with the electronic method, periods of quiet breathing can be identified, allowing for the measurement of pleural pressure.