Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMorgenstern de Muller, Christian Rudolf
dc.contributor.authorSchwaibold, Matthias
dc.contributor.authorRanderath, W.
dc.contributor.authorBolz, Armin
dc.contributor.authorJané Campos, Raimon
dc.contributor.otherUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Departament d'Enginyeria de Sistemes, Automàtica i Informàtica Industrial
dc.contributor.otherInstitut de Bioenginyeria de Catalunya
dc.date.accessioned2012-01-11T12:05:16Z
dc.date.available2012-01-11T12:05:16Z
dc.date.created2011
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.citationMorgenstern de Muller, C. [et al.]. Comparison of upper airway respiratory resistance measurements with the esophageal pressure/airflow relationship during sleep. A: IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. "Proceedings of the 33rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS". Boston: 2011, p. 3205-3208.
dc.identifier.isbn978-1-4244-4122-8
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2117/14469
dc.description.abstractMeasurement of upper airway resistance is of interest in sleep disordered breathing to estimate upper airway patency. Resistance is calculated with the airflow and respiratory effort signals. However, there is no consensus on a standard for upper airway resistance measurement. This study proposes a new benchmarking method to objectively compare different upper airway resistance measurement methods by objectively differentiating between breaths with inspiratory flow limitation (high resistance) and non-limited breaths (low resistance). Resistance was measured at peak-Pes, at peak-flow, at the linear portion of a polynomial equation, as an area comparative and as average resistance for an inspiration. A total of 20 patients with systematic, gold-standard esophageal pressure and nasal airflow acquisition were analyzed and 109,955 breaths were automatically extracted and evaluated. Relative resistance values in relationship to a reference resistance value obtained during wakefulness were also analyzed. The peak-Pes measurement method obtained the highest separation index with significant (p < 0.001) differences to the other methods, followed by the area comparative and the peak-flow methods. As expected, average resistances were significantly (p < 0.001) lower for the non-IFL than for the IFL group. Hence, we recommend employing the peak-Pes for accurate upper airway resistance estimation.
dc.format.extent4 p.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectÀrees temàtiques de la UPC::Enginyeria biomèdica::Electrònica biomèdica
dc.subject.lcshElectrical resistance measurement
dc.subject.lcshSleep apnea
dc.titleComparison of upper airway respiratory resistance measurements with the esophageal pressure/airflow relationship during sleep
dc.typeConference report
dc.subject.lemacApnea
dc.subject.lemacBioenginyeria -- Instrumentació
dc.contributor.groupUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya. SISBIO - Senyals i Sistemes Biomèdics
dc.identifier.doi10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6090872
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.rights.accessRestricted access - publisher's policy
local.identifier.drac8952245
dc.description.versionPostprint (published version)
local.citation.authorMorgenstern de Muller, C.; Schwaibold, M.; Randerath, W.; Bolz, A.; Jané, R.
local.citation.contributorIEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society
local.citation.pubplaceBoston
local.citation.publicationNameProceedings of the 33rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS
local.citation.startingPage3205
local.citation.endingPage3208


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record