Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We examined the effects of within-breath changes in compliance (C) upon the accuracy of measurements of compliance and resistance (R) by linear regression analysis and by Mead and Wittenberger's method. These effects were illustrated by a computer model and by lung models with linear and nonlinear pressure/volume relationships, and were also studied in 14 normal spontaneously breathing premature infants (mean +/- SD, BW 1,290 +/- 200 g, GA 29.9 +/- 2.7 weeks, age 7.4 +/- 2.1 days). Flow was measured by pneumotachography and tidal volume was derived as digitally integrated flow, and transpulmonary pressure as airway minus esophageal pressure. We found that C and R calculated from the equation of motion is accurate only if C and R remain constant throughout the respiratory cycle. Calculated compliance depends more on C at the end than at the beginning of inspiration. A decreasing C leads to underestimation or R, while an increasing C leads to an overestimation of inspiratory R. Calculated total R may be accurate, but with low r values for measurement points. Mead and Wittenberger's method and the regression method are similarly affected by changing C; however, since the regression method is based on many more measurement points and therefore allows the detection and analysis of within-breath changes of C and R, it is less prone to erroneous results secondary to signal artifacts than Mead and Wittenberger's method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neto et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: