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


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Heenan, T.
Right arrow Articles by Jumper, L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Heenan, T.
Right arrow Articles by Jumper, L

Chest, Vol 77, 598-602, Copyright © 1980 by American College of Chest Physicians

ARTICLES

Intermittent mandatory ventilation; is synchronization important?

TJ Heenan, JB Downs, ME Douglas, BC Ruiz and L Jumper

Intermittent mandatory ventilation (IMV) allows patients to breathe spontaneously between mechanically supported breaths. Recently, several manufacturers have implied that nonsynchronous application of the mechanical breath may depress cardiovascular function and increase pulmonary barotrauma. Because it is technically difficult and expensive to synchronize mechanical ventilation to spontaneous breathing, we sought to determine whether there is any significant difference in cardiopulmonary function during synchronous and nonsynchronous mandatory ventilation. Our investigation failed to support the hypothesis that synchronization of spontaneous and mechanically mediated breathing is physiologically beneficial.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1980 by the American College of Chest Physicians.