Cargando…

Pressure measurement characteristics of a micro‐transducer and balloon catheters

Respiratory pressure responses to cervical magnetic stimulation are important measurements in monitoring the mechanical function of the respiratory muscles. Pressures can be measured using balloon catheters or a catheter containing integrated micro‐transducers. However, no research has provided a co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: MacAskill, William, Hoffman, Ben, Johnson, Michael A., Sharpe, Graham R., Mills, Dean E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8090844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33938126
http://dx.doi.org/10.14814/phy2.14831
_version_ 1783687376477880320
author MacAskill, William
Hoffman, Ben
Johnson, Michael A.
Sharpe, Graham R.
Mills, Dean E.
author_facet MacAskill, William
Hoffman, Ben
Johnson, Michael A.
Sharpe, Graham R.
Mills, Dean E.
author_sort MacAskill, William
collection PubMed
description Respiratory pressure responses to cervical magnetic stimulation are important measurements in monitoring the mechanical function of the respiratory muscles. Pressures can be measured using balloon catheters or a catheter containing integrated micro‐transducers. However, no research has provided a comprehensive analysis of their pressure measurement characteristics. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to provide a comparative analysis of these characteristics in two separate experiments: (1) in vitro with a reference pressure transducer following a controlled pressurization; and (2) in vivo following cervical magnetic stimulations. In vitro the micro‐transducer catheter recorded pressure amplitudes and areas which were in closer agreement to the reference pressure transducer than the balloon catheter. In vivo there was a main effect for stimulation power and catheter for esophageal (P(es)), gastric (P(ga)), and transdiaphragmatic (P(di)) pressure amplitudes (p < 0.001) with the micro‐transducer catheter recording larger pressure amplitudes. There was a main effect of stimulation power (p < 0.001) and no main effect of catheter for esophageal (p = 0.481), gastric (p = 0.923), and transdiaphragmatic (p = 0.964) pressure areas. At 100% stimulator power agreement between catheters for P(di) amplitude (bias =6.9 cmH(2)O and LOA −0.61 to 14.27 cmH(2)O) and pressure areas (bias = −0.05 cmH(2)O·s and LOA −1.22 to 1.11 cmH(2)O·s) were assessed. At 100% stimulator power, and compared to the balloon catheters, the micro‐transducer catheter displayed a shorter 10–90% rise time, contraction time, latency, and half‐relaxation time, alongside greater maximal rates of change in pressure for esophageal, gastric, and transdiaphragmatic pressure amplitudes (p < 0.05). These results suggest that caution is warranted if comparing pressure amplitude results utilizing different catheter systems, or if micro‐transducers are used in clinical settings while applying balloon catheter‐derived normative values. However, pressure areas could be used as an alternative point of comparison between catheter systems.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8090844
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80908442021-05-10 Pressure measurement characteristics of a micro‐transducer and balloon catheters MacAskill, William Hoffman, Ben Johnson, Michael A. Sharpe, Graham R. Mills, Dean E. Physiol Rep ORIGINAL ARTICLES Respiratory pressure responses to cervical magnetic stimulation are important measurements in monitoring the mechanical function of the respiratory muscles. Pressures can be measured using balloon catheters or a catheter containing integrated micro‐transducers. However, no research has provided a comprehensive analysis of their pressure measurement characteristics. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to provide a comparative analysis of these characteristics in two separate experiments: (1) in vitro with a reference pressure transducer following a controlled pressurization; and (2) in vivo following cervical magnetic stimulations. In vitro the micro‐transducer catheter recorded pressure amplitudes and areas which were in closer agreement to the reference pressure transducer than the balloon catheter. In vivo there was a main effect for stimulation power and catheter for esophageal (P(es)), gastric (P(ga)), and transdiaphragmatic (P(di)) pressure amplitudes (p < 0.001) with the micro‐transducer catheter recording larger pressure amplitudes. There was a main effect of stimulation power (p < 0.001) and no main effect of catheter for esophageal (p = 0.481), gastric (p = 0.923), and transdiaphragmatic (p = 0.964) pressure areas. At 100% stimulator power agreement between catheters for P(di) amplitude (bias =6.9 cmH(2)O and LOA −0.61 to 14.27 cmH(2)O) and pressure areas (bias = −0.05 cmH(2)O·s and LOA −1.22 to 1.11 cmH(2)O·s) were assessed. At 100% stimulator power, and compared to the balloon catheters, the micro‐transducer catheter displayed a shorter 10–90% rise time, contraction time, latency, and half‐relaxation time, alongside greater maximal rates of change in pressure for esophageal, gastric, and transdiaphragmatic pressure amplitudes (p < 0.05). These results suggest that caution is warranted if comparing pressure amplitude results utilizing different catheter systems, or if micro‐transducers are used in clinical settings while applying balloon catheter‐derived normative values. However, pressure areas could be used as an alternative point of comparison between catheter systems. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8090844/ /pubmed/33938126 http://dx.doi.org/10.14814/phy2.14831 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Physiological Society and the American Physiological Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle ORIGINAL ARTICLES
MacAskill, William
Hoffman, Ben
Johnson, Michael A.
Sharpe, Graham R.
Mills, Dean E.
Pressure measurement characteristics of a micro‐transducer and balloon catheters
title Pressure measurement characteristics of a micro‐transducer and balloon catheters
title_full Pressure measurement characteristics of a micro‐transducer and balloon catheters
title_fullStr Pressure measurement characteristics of a micro‐transducer and balloon catheters
title_full_unstemmed Pressure measurement characteristics of a micro‐transducer and balloon catheters
title_short Pressure measurement characteristics of a micro‐transducer and balloon catheters
title_sort pressure measurement characteristics of a micro‐transducer and balloon catheters
topic ORIGINAL ARTICLES
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8090844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33938126
http://dx.doi.org/10.14814/phy2.14831
work_keys_str_mv AT macaskillwilliam pressuremeasurementcharacteristicsofamicrotransducerandballooncatheters
AT hoffmanben pressuremeasurementcharacteristicsofamicrotransducerandballooncatheters
AT johnsonmichaela pressuremeasurementcharacteristicsofamicrotransducerandballooncatheters
AT sharpegrahamr pressuremeasurementcharacteristicsofamicrotransducerandballooncatheters
AT millsdeane pressuremeasurementcharacteristicsofamicrotransducerandballooncatheters