Hamilton Medical 哈美顿医疗公司标志 Hamilton Logo
返回

最大吸气压（或 NIF）的测量

文章

作者: Bernhard Schmitt, Simon Franz

日期: 02.10.2020

Last change: 02.10.2020

SW versions updated
Hamilton Medical 哈美顿医疗公司呼吸机的用户可能希望使用最大吸气压 (MIP) 来指示吸气肌的能力，特别是隔膜的强度。吸气负压 (NIF) 是一个同义词。
最大吸气压（或 NIF）的测量

MIP 的定义

MIP 定义为对阻塞气道产生的压力形式的最大吸气努力。MIP 值可以通过长时间气道开放闭塞操作来确定，即使无病人配合，也可以获得最大吸气努力。MIP 尝试的持续时间从 1 到 25 s 不等，应至少重复两次以确保可靠的值 (Sclauser Pessoa IM, Franco Parreira V, Fregonezi GA, Sheel AW, Chung F, Reid WD. Reference values for maximal inspiratory pressure: a systematic review. Can Respir J. 2014;21(1):43-50. doi:10.1155/2014/9823741​)。 

在 HAMILTON-G5/S1 呼吸机上进行 MIP 尝试

如何使用 HAMILTON-G5/S1 进行 MIP 尝试：

  • 病人必须为主动型，即自主呼吸
  • 手动设置压力曲线的 Y-轴：正 20，负 -120
  • 将 PEEP 设置为 0
  • 执行呼气屏气
  • 测量压力曲线的最小值（见图 1）

在此示例中，测量的 MIP 为 44.6，因为 MIP 总是一个正值。

目前只能在 HAMILTON-G5/S1 上测量这些值。

相关软件：2.8x 及更高版本

显示压力曲线最小值测量的截图
图 1
显示压力曲线最小值测量的截图
图 1

脚注

参考文献

  1. 1. Sclauser Pessoa IM, Franco Parreira V, Fregonezi GA, Sheel AW, Chung F, Reid WD. Reference values for maximal inspiratory pressure: a systematic review. Can Respir J. 2014;21(1):43-50. doi:10.1155/2014/982374

Reference values for maximal inspiratory pressure: a systematic review.

Sclauser Pessoa IM, Franco Parreira V, Fregonezi GA, Sheel AW, Chung F, Reid WD. Reference values for maximal inspiratory pressure: a systematic review. Can Respir J. 2014;21(1):43-50. doi:10.1155/2014/982374



BACKGROUND

Maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) is the most commonly used measure to evaluate inspiratory muscle strength. Normative values for MIP vary significantly among studies, which may reflect differences in participant demographics and technique of MIP measurement.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review with meta-analyses to synthesize MIP values that represent healthy adults.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) and Sport Discus databases. Two reviewers identified and selected articles, and abstracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. A random-effects model was used to calculate overall means and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Of 22 included articles, MIP data were synthesized according to age group and sex from six reports (n=840) in the meta-analyses. The mean QUADAS score was 3.5 of 7. The age range was between 18 and 83 years (426 men, 414 women). MIP began to decrease with age in the 40 to 60 years age range and continued to fall progressively with age. For the same age group, men tended to have higher MIPs than women. Sensitivity analysis of withdrawing studies from the meta-analysis identified one study that contributed more to heterogeneity in some age groups.

DISCUSSION

MIP was higher in men and decreased with age, which was initially apparent in middle age. Several characteristics of participants and MIP technique influence values in healthy individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis provides normative MIP values that are reflective of a large sample (n=840) and likely represents the broadest representation of participant characteristics compared with previous reports of normative data.