• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.201-209
• /
• 1996

Background : Auto-PEEP which develops when expiratory lung emptying is not finished until the beginning of next inspiration is frequently found in patients on mechanical ventilation. Its presence imposes increased risk of barotrauma and hypotension, as well as increased work of breathing (WOB) by adding inspiratory threshold load and/or adversely affecting to inspiratory trigger sensitivity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationship of auto-PEEP with WOB and to evaluate the effect of PEEP applied by ventilator (external PEEP) on WOB in patients with auto-PEEP. Method : 15 patients, who required mechanical ventilation for management of acute respiratory failure, were studied. First, the differences in WOB and other indices of respiratory mechanics were examined between 7 patients with auto-PEEP and 8 patients without auto-PEEP. Then, we applied the 3 cm $H_2O$ of external PEEP to patients with auto-PEEP and evaluated its effects on lung mechanics as well as WOB. Indices of respiratory mechanics including tidal volume ($V_T$), repiratory rate, minute ventilation ($V_E$), peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR), peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), $T_I/T_{TOT}$, auto-PEEP, dynamic compliance of lung (Cdyn), expiratory airway resistance (RAWe), mean airway resistance (RAWm), $p_{0.1}$, work of breathing performed by patient (WOB), and pressure-time product (PTP) were obtained by CP-100 Pulmonary Monitor (Bicore, USA). The values were expressed as mean $\pm$ SEM (standard error of mean). Results : 1) Comparison of WOB and other indices of respiratory mechanics in patients with and without auto-PEEP : There was significant increase in WOB ($l.71{\pm}0.24$ vs $0.50{\pm}0.19\;J/L$, p=0.007), PTP ($317{\pm}70$ vs $98{\pm}36\;cm$ $H_2O{\cdot}sec/min$, p=0.023), RAWe ($35.6{\pm}5.7$ vs $18.2{\pm}2.3\;cm$ H2O/L/sec, p=0.023), RAWm ($28.8{\pm}2.5$ vs $11.9{\pm}2.0cm$ H2O/L/sec, p=0.001) and $P_{0.1}$ ($6.2{\pm}1.0$ vs 2.9+0.6 cm H2O, p=0.021) in patients with auto-PEEP compared to patients without auto-PEEP. The differences of other indices including $V_T$, PEFR, $V_E$ and $T_I/T_{TOT}$ showed no significance. 2) Effect of 3 cm $H_2O$ external PEEP on respiratory mechanics in patients with auto-PEEP : When 3 cm $H_2O$ of external PEEP was applied, there were significant decrease in WOB ($1.71{\pm}0.24$ vs $1.20{\pm}0.21\;J/L$, p=0.021) and PTP ($317{\pm}70$ vs $231{\pm}55\;cm$ $H_2O{\cdot}sec/min$, p=0.038). RAWm showed a tendency to decrease ($28.8{\pm}2.5$ vs $23.9{\pm}2.1\;cm$ $H_2O$, p=0.051). But PIP was increased with application of 3 cm $H_2O$ of external PEEP ($16{\pm}2$ vs $22{\pm}3\;cm$ $H_2O$, p=0.008). $V_T$, $V_E$, PEFR, $T_I/T_{TOT}$ and Cdyn did not change significantly. Conclusion : The presence of auto-PEEP in mechanically ventilated patients was accompanied with increased WOB performed by patient, and this WOB was decreased by 3 cm $H_2O$ of externally applied PEEP. But, with 3 cm $H_2O$ of external PEEP, increased PIP was noted, implying the importance of close monitoring of the airway pressure during application of external PEEP.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.15 no.7
• /
• pp.1049-1056
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this study was to develop a respiratory synchronization device for X-ray (X-RSD) to increase the reproducibility of inspiration when examining the Chest X-ray of a patient who difficulty in breathing coordination. The X-RSD was self-made using an air pressure sensor and air was injected by connecting a ventilator to the mannequin for CPR. At this time, the amount of injected air was quantified using the SkillReporting device. After placing the X-RSD on the chest of the mannequin, the amount of air was tested in 6 steps from 200 to 700 cc by 100 cc increased. For the accuracy evaluation, the sensitivity of X-RSD was measured by repeating a total of 80 measurements, and the sensitivity was 100%, and very precise results were obtained. After that, the images examined while viewing the X-RSD of the chest lateral examination and the images obtained by the blind examination were compared and evaluated. The lung volume of X-RSD was larger than that of the blind test, and the deviation was smaller. Overall, the use of X-RSD can help with chest X-ray examination of patients who have difficulty in cooperating, and it is thought that it will be possible to contribute to the reduction of exposure dose by reducing the repeat rate of general X-ray examinations.

• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.89-97
• /
• 2010

This study researches the effects of common features on a no-choice option with respect to regulatory focus theory. The primary interest is in three factors and their interrelationship: common features, no-choice option, and regulatory focus. Prior studies have compiled vast body of research in these areas. First, the "common features effect" has been observed bymany noted marketing researchers. Tversky (1972) proposed the seminal theory, the EBA model: elimination by aspect. According to this theory, consumers are prone to focus only on unique features during comparison processing, thereby dismissing any common features as redundant information. Recently, however, more provocative ideas have attacked the EBA model by asserting that common features really do affect consumer judgment. Chernev (1997) first reported that adding common features mitigates the choice gap because of the increasing perception of similarity among alternatives. Later, however, Chernev (2001) published a critically developed study against his prior perspective with the proposition that common features may be a cognitive load to consumers, and thus consumers are possible that they are prone to prefer the heuristic processing to the systematic processing. This tends to bring one question to the forefront: Do "common features" affect consumer choice? If so, what are the concrete effects? This study tries to answer the question with respect to the "no-choice" option and regulatory focus. Second, some researchers hold that the no-choice option is another best alternative of consumers, who are likely to avoid having to choose in the context of knotty trade-off settings or mental conflicts. Hope for the future also may increase the no-choice option in the context of optimism or the expectancy of a more satisfactory alternative appearing later. Other issues reported in this domain are time pressure, consumer confidence, and alternative numbers (Dhar and Nowlis 1999; Lin and Wu 2005; Zakay and Tsal 1993). This study casts the no-choice option in yet another perspective: the interactive effects between common features and regulatory focus. Third, "regulatory focus theory" is a very popular theme in recent marketing research. It suggests that consumers have two focal goals facing each other: promotion vs. prevention. A promotion focus deals with the concepts of hope, inspiration, achievement, or gain, whereas prevention focus involves duty, responsibility, safety, or loss-aversion. Thus, while consumers with a promotion focus tend to take risks for gain, the same does not hold true for a prevention focus. Regulatory focus theory predicts consumers' emotions, creativity, attitudes, memory, performance, and judgment, as documented in a vast field of marketing and psychology articles. The perspective of the current study in exploring consumer choice and common features is a somewhat creative viewpoint in the area of regulatory focus. These reviews inspire this study of the interaction possibility between regulatory focus and common features with a no-choice option. Specifically, adding common features rather than omitting them may increase the no-choice option ratio in the choice setting only to prevention-focused consumers, but vice versa to promotion-focused consumers. The reasoning is that when prevention-focused consumers come in contact with common features, they may perceive higher similarity among the alternatives. This conflict among similar options would increase the no-choice ratio. Promotion-focused consumers, however, are possible that they perceive common features as a cue of confirmation bias. And thus their confirmation processing would make their prior preference more robust, then the no-choice ratio may shrink. This logic is verified in two experiments. The first is a $2{\times}2$ between-subject design (whether common features or not X regulatory focus) using a digital cameras as the relevant stimulus-a product very familiar to young subjects. Specifically, the regulatory focus variable is median split through a measure of eleven items. Common features included zoom, weight, memory, and battery, whereas the other two attributes (pixel and price) were unique features. Results supported our hypothesis that adding common features enhanced the no-choice ratio only to prevention-focus consumers, not to those with a promotion focus. These results confirm our hypothesis - the interactive effects between a regulatory focus and the common features. Prior research had suggested that including common features had a effect on consumer choice, but this study shows that common features affect choice by consumer segmentation. The second experiment was used to replicate the results of the first experiment. This experimental study is equal to the prior except only two - priming manipulation and another stimulus. For the promotion focus condition, subjects had to write an essay using words such as profit, inspiration, pleasure, achievement, development, hedonic, change, pursuit, etc. For prevention, however, they had to use the words persistence, safety, protection, aversion, loss, responsibility, stability etc. The room for rent had common features (sunshine, facility, ventilation) and unique features (distance time and building state). These attributes implied various levels and valence for replication of the prior experiment. Our hypothesis was supported repeatedly in the results, and the interaction effects were significant between regulatory focus and common features. Thus, these studies showed the dual effects of common features on consumer choice for a no-choice option. Adding common features may enhance or mitigate no-choice, contradictory as it may sound. Under a prevention focus, adding common features is likely to enhance the no-choice ratio because of increasing mental conflict; under the promotion focus, it is prone to shrink the ratio perhaps because of a "confirmation bias." The research has practical and theoretical implications for marketers, who may need to consider common features carefully in a practical display context according to consumer segmentation (i.e., promotion vs. prevention focus.) Theoretically, the results suggest some meaningful moderator variable between common features and no-choice in that the effect on no-choice option is partly dependent on a regulatory focus. This variable corresponds not only to a chronic perspective but also a situational perspective in our hypothesis domain. Finally, in light of some shortcomings in the research, such as overlooked attribute importance, low ratio of no-choice, or the external validity issue, we hope it influences future studies to explore the little-known world of the "no-choice option."

• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.555-568
• /
• 1995

Background: It is most physiologic to measure the diffusing capacity of the lung by using oxygen, but it is so difficult to measure partial pressure of oxygen in the capillary blood of the lung that in clinical practice it is measured by using carbon monoxide, and single-breath diffusing capacity method is used most widely. However, since the process of withholding the breath for 10 seconds after inspiration to the total lung capacity is very hard to practice for patients who suffer from cough, dyspnea, etc, the intra-breath lung diffusing capacity method which requires a single exhalation of low-flow rate without such process was devised. In this study, we want to know whether or not there is any significant difference in the diffusing capacity of the lung measured by the single-breath and intra-breath methods, and if any, which factors have any influence. Methods: We chose randomly 73 persons without regarding specific disease, and after conducting 3 times the flow-volume curve test, we selected forced vital capacity(FVC), percent of predicted forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume within 1 second($FEV_1$), percent of forced expiratory volume within 1 second, the ratio of forced expiratory volume within 1 second against forced vital capacity($FEV_1$/FVC) in test which the sum of FVC and $FEV_1$ is biggest. We measured the diffusing capacity of the lung 3 times in each of the single-breath and intra-breath methods at intervals of 5 minutes, and we evaluated which factors have any influence on the difference of the diffusing capacity of the lung between two methods[the mean values(ml/min/mmHg) of difference between two diffusing capacity measured by two methods] by means of the linear regression method, and obtained the following results: Results: 1) Intra-test reproducibility in the single-breath and intra-breath methods was excellent. 2) There was in general a good correlation between the diffusing capacity of the lung measured by a single-breath method and that measured by the intra-breath method, but there was a significant difference between values measured by both methods($1.01{\pm}0.35ml/min/mmHg$, p<0.01) 3) The difference between the diffusing capacity of the lung measured by both methods was not correlated to FVC, but was correlated to $FEV_1$, percent of $FEV_1$, $FEV_1$/FVC and the gradient of methane concentration which is an indicator of distribution of ventilation, and it was found as a result of the multiple regression test, that the effect of $FEV_1$/FVC was most strong(r=-0.4725, p<0.01) 4) In a graphic view of the difference of diffusing capacity measured by single-breath and intra-breath method and $FEV_1$/FVC, it was found that the former was divided into two groups in section where $FEV_1$/FVC is 50~60%, and that there was no significant difference between two methods in the section where $FEV_1$/FVC is equal or more than 60% ($0.05{\pm}0.24ml/min/mmHg$, p>0.1), but there was significant difference in the section, less than 60%($-4.5{\pm}0.34ml/min/mmHg$, p<0.01). 5. The diffusing capacity of the lung measured by the single-breath and intra-breath method was the same in value($24.3{\pm}0.68ml/min/mmHg$) within the normal range(2%/L) of the methane gas gradient, and there was no difference depending on the measuring method, but if the methane concentration gradients exceed 2%/L, the diffusing capacity of the lung measured by single-breath method became $15.0{\pm}0.44ml/min/mmHg$, and that measured by intra-breath method, $11.9{\pm}0.51ml/min/mmHg$, and there was a significant difference between them(p<0.01). Conclusion: Therefore, in case where $FEV_1$/FVC was less than 60%, the diffusing capacity of the lung measured by intra-breath method represented significantly lower value than that by single-breath method, and it was presumed to be caused largely by a defect of ventilation-distribution, but the possibility could not be excluded that the diffusing capacity of the lung might be overestimated in the single-breath method, or the actual reduction of the diffusing capacity of the lung appeared more sensitively in the intra-breath method.