English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objective   To compare the clinical effect of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV), delivered via critical care ventilator or miniventilator, in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD).Methods   Prospective comparison study. Patients with AECOPD underwent NIPPV via: miniventilator with BiLevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP; Group A); critical care ventilator with pressure support ventilation and positive end expiratory pressure (PSV + PEEP; Group B); critical care ventilator with pressure-synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (P-SIMV)+PSV + PEEP (Group C). Physiological parameters were recorded before, during and after ventilation.Results   Patients in Group C ( n = 21) showed significantly better improvements in physiological parameters (compared with pretreatment values) than those in Group B ( n = 20) or Group A ( n = 22).Conclusion   NIPPV delivered via critical care ventilator has a better treatment effect than miniventilator NIPPV in patients with AECOPD. The use of P-SIMV + PSV + PEEP mode provides a significantly better treatment effect than PSV + PEEP alone.

Noninvasive ventilation with complex critical care ventilator in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease