ERJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Permissions
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peslin, R
Right arrow Articles by Duvivier, C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Peslin, R
Right arrow Articles by Duvivier, C
Eur Respir J 1994; 7: 2241-2245
Copyright © ERS Journals Ltd 1994


Original Articles

Fourier analysis versus multiple linear regression to analyse pressure-flow data during artificial ventilation

R Peslin, C Gallina, C Saunier, and C Duvivier

Respiratory resistance (Rrs) and elastance (Ers) are commonly measured in artificially-ventilated patients or animals by multiple linear regression of airway opening pressure (Pao) versus flow (V') and volume (V), according to the first order model: Pao = P0 + Ers.V + Rrs.V', where P0 is the static recoil pressure at end-expiration. An alternative way to obtain Rrs and Ers is to derive them from the Fourier coefficients of Pao and V' at the breathing frequency. A potential advantage of the second approach over the first is that it should be insensitive to a zero offset on V' and to the corresponding volume drift. The two methods were assessed comparatively in six tracheotomized, paralysed and artificially ventilated rabbits with and without adding to V' an offset equal to 5% of the mean unsigned flow. The 5% flow offset did not modify the results of Fourier analysis, but increased Rrs and Ers from linear regression by 15.8 +/- 4.6% and 4.55 +/- 0.64%, respectively. Without additional offset, differences between the two methods averaged 30.2 +/- 14.0% for Rrs and 9.3 +/- 6.2% for Ers. The differences almost completely disappeared (2.47 and 0.61%, respectively) when the flow signal was zero-corrected using the assumption that inspired and expired volumes were the same. After induced bronchoconstriction, however, Ers was still slightly larger by linear regression than by Fourier analysis, which may result from nonlinearities and/or frequency dependence of the parameters. We conclude that the regression method requires zero flow correction and that Fourier analysis is an attractive alternative.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
C. Edibam, A. J. Rutten, D. V. Collins, and A. D. Bersten
Effect of Inspiratory Flow Pattern and Inspiratory to Expiratory Ratio on Nonlinear Elastic Behavior in Patients with Acute Lung Injury
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., March 1, 2003; 167(5): 702 - 707.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
B. Foitzik, M. Schmidt, D. Windstetter, R. R. Wauer, and G. Schmalisch
Leak measurements in spontaneously breathing premature newborns by using the flow-through technique
J Appl Physiol, September 1, 1998; 85(3): 1187 - 1193.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the European Respiratory Society.