Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1002/emp2.12152 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1002/emp2.12152 C7280651!7280651!32838370     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 227.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 227.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 227.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\32838370.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       J+Am+Coll+Emerg+Physicians+Open 2020 ; 1 (4): 521-6 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=32838370|t=2020. Aerosol risk with noninvasive respiratory support in patients with COVID?19 |pdf=|usr=}}{{32838370}} gab.com Text Aerosol risk with noninvasive respiratory support in patients with COVID 19 JO: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32838370 #FOAvip Objectives: This study evaluates aerosol production with high?flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) compared to 6 L/min by low?flow nasal cannula. Methods: Two healthy volunteers were randomized to control (6 L/min by low?flow nasal cannula), NIPPV, or HFNC using block randomization. NIPPV conditions were studied using continuous positive airway pressures of 5, 10, and 15 cm H2O with an FiO2 of 1.0 delivered via full?face mask. HFNC conditions included flow rates of 30 and 40 L/min with an FiO2 of 1.0 with and without coughing. HFNC and low?flow nasal cannula conditions were repeated with and without participants wearing a surgical mask. Six aerosol sizes (0.3, 1.0, 2.5, 5, and 10 µm) and total aerosol mass were measured at 2 and 6 ft from the participant's nasopharynx. Results: There was no significant difference in aerosol production between either HFNC or NIPPV and control. There was also no significant difference with the use of a procedural mask over the HFNC. There was significant variation between the 2 participants, but in neither case was there a difference compared to control. There was an aerosol?time trend, but there does not appear to be a difference between either flow rate, pressure, or control. Furthermore, there was no accumulation of total aerosol particles over the total duration of the experiment in both HFNC and NIPPV conditions. Conclusions: HFNC and NIPPV did not increase aerosol production compared to 6 L/min by low?flow nasal cannula in this experiment involving healthy volunteers. Twit Text FOAVip Aerosol risk with noninvasive respiratory support in patients with COVID 19 ????J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32838370 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=32838370 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|32838370}}</ref> Aerosol risk with noninvasive respiratory support in patients with COVID?19 #MMPMID32838370 Miller DC; Beamer P; Billheimer D; Subbian V; Sorooshian A; Campbell BS; Mosier JM J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open 2020[Aug]; 1 (4): 521-6 PMID32838370show ga Objectives: This study evaluates aerosol production with high?flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) compared to 6 L/min by low?flow nasal cannula. Methods: Two healthy volunteers were randomized to control (6 L/min by low?flow nasal cannula), NIPPV, or HFNC using block randomization. NIPPV conditions were studied using continuous positive airway pressures of 5, 10, and 15 cm H2O with an FiO2 of 1.0 delivered via full?face mask. HFNC conditions included flow rates of 30 and 40 L/min with an FiO2 of 1.0 with and without coughing. HFNC and low?flow nasal cannula conditions were repeated with and without participants wearing a surgical mask. Six aerosol sizes (0.3, 1.0, 2.5, 5, and 10 µm) and total aerosol mass were measured at 2 and 6 ft from the participant's nasopharynx. Results: There was no significant difference in aerosol production between either HFNC or NIPPV and control. There was also no significant difference with the use of a procedural mask over the HFNC. There was significant variation between the 2 participants, but in neither case was there a difference compared to control. There was an aerosol?time trend, but there does not appear to be a difference between either flow rate, pressure, or control. Furthermore, there was no accumulation of total aerosol particles over the total duration of the experiment in both HFNC and NIPPV conditions. Conclusions: HFNC and NIPPV did not increase aerosol production compared to 6 L/min by low?flow nasal cannula in this experiment involving healthy volunteers. äAerosol risk with noninvasive respiratory support in patients with COV(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing