Suppr超能文献

用M型(MM)或B型(BM)测量膈肌功能有区别吗?

Does it make difference to measure diaphragm function with M mode (MM) or B mode (BM)?

作者信息

Kalın Burhan Sami, Gürsel Gül

机构信息

Division of Critical Care, Department of Internal Medicine, Gazi University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.

Department of Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine, Gazi University School of Medicine, 06560, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

J Clin Monit Comput. 2020 Dec;34(6):1247-1257. doi: 10.1007/s10877-019-00432-7. Epub 2019 Nov 28.

Abstract

Diaphragm dysfunction occurs in mechanically ventilated subjects. Recent literature suggests that diaphragm thickening fraction (DTF) measured by ultrasound can be useful to predict weaning outcome. However, there is no standardized approach in the measurement of diaphragm thickness (DT) and limited data exists comparing different measurement techniques of diaphragm thickness (M mode-MM or B mode-BM). The goal of this study was to compare MM with BM in the measurements of DT and excursion in the ICU subjects. DT measurements were obtained from the right diaphragm during tidal and maximal inspiratory breathing. Three measurements of the DT were taken both in MM and BM and their mean values were calculated. DT was measured during inspiration and expiration and DTF was calculated. Excursion of diaphragm was also measured with MM and BM during tidal and maximal inspiratory breathing. Bias and agreement between the two measurement methods were evaluated with Bland and Altman test. Sixty-two subjects were enrolled in the study. While 25 (40%) subjects were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, 14 (23%) subjects ventilated noninvasively. There were no significant difference between the measurement results of MM and BM. BM and MM tidal diaphragm measurements during the inspiratory (0.3 ± 0.08 and 0.31 ± 0.08 cm; P = 0.022), expiratory (0.24 ± 0.07 and 0.24 ± 0.07 cm; P = 0.315) phases and tidal DTF were (27 ± 16 and 31 ± 14%, P = 0.089) respectively. Results of our study suggests that except tidal inspiratory diaphragm thickness, all thickness and excursion measurements with MM and BM are very compatible with each other. Further studies are necessarry to confirm our results and to standardize the measurements of diaphragm.

摘要

膈肌功能障碍发生在机械通气的患者中。最近的文献表明,通过超声测量的膈肌增厚分数(DTF)有助于预测撤机结果。然而,在膈肌厚度(DT)测量方面没有标准化方法,并且比较不同膈肌厚度测量技术(M模式-MM或B模式-BM)的数据有限。本研究的目的是比较MM和BM在重症监护病房(ICU)患者中测量DT和偏移的情况。在潮气呼吸和最大吸气时从右侧膈肌获取DT测量值。在MM和BM中均对DT进行三次测量,并计算其平均值。在吸气和呼气时测量DT并计算DTF。在潮气呼吸和最大吸气时也用MM和BM测量膈肌偏移。用Bland和Altman检验评估两种测量方法之间的偏差和一致性。62名受试者纳入本研究。其中25名(40%)受试者接受有创机械通气,14名(23%)受试者接受无创通气。MM和BM的测量结果之间无显著差异。BM和MM在吸气(0.3±0.08和0.31±0.08 cm;P = 0.022)、呼气(0.24±0.07和0.24±0.07 cm;P = 0.315)阶段的潮气膈肌测量值以及潮气DTF分别为(27±16和31±14%,P = 0.089)。我们的研究结果表明,除了潮气吸气膈肌厚度外,MM和BM的所有厚度和偏移测量值彼此非常一致。需要进一步研究以证实我们的结果并使膈肌测量标准化。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验