Calibration of an Airflow Perturbation Device (APD)

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur T. Johnson ◽  
Jafar Vossoughi ◽  
James Pan
2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 470-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally J. K. Gallena ◽  
Nancy Pearl Solomon ◽  
Arthur T. Johnson ◽  
Jafar Vossoughi ◽  
Wei Tian

Purpose An investigational, portable instrument was used to assess inspiratory (R i ) and expiratory (R e ) resistances during resting tidal breathing (RTB), postexercise breathing (PEB), and recovery breathing (RB) in athletes with and without paradoxical vocal fold motion disorder (PVFMD). Method Prospective, controlled, repeated measures within-subject and between-groups design. Twenty-four teenage female athletes, 12 with and 12 without PVFMD, breathed into the Airflow Perturbation Device for baseline measures of respiratory resistance and for two successive 1-min trials after treadmill running for up to 12 min. Exercise duration and dyspnea ratings were collected and compared across groups. Results Athletes with PVFMD had lower than control R i and R e values during RTB that significantly increased at PEB and decreased during RB. Control athletes' R e decreased significantly from RTB to PEB but not from PEB to RB, whereas R i did not change from RTB to PEB but decreased from PEB to RB. Athletes without PVFMD ran longer, providing lower dyspnea ratings. Conclusion Immediately following exercise, athletes with PVFMD experienced increased respiratory resistance that affected their exercise performance. The difference in resting respiratory resistances between groups is intriguing and could point to anatomical differences or neural adaptation in teenagers with PVFMD. The Airflow Perturbation Device appears to be a clinically feasible tool that can provide insight into PVFMD and objective data for tracking treatment progress.


2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika R. Lopresti ◽  
Arthur T. Johnson ◽  
Frank C. Koh ◽  
William H. Scott ◽  
Shaya Jamshidi ◽  
...  

CHEST Journal ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 130 (4) ◽  
pp. 241S
Author(s):  
James Lemert ◽  
Michael D. Goldman ◽  
Arthur Johnson ◽  
Jafar Vossoughi ◽  
Nischom Silverman ◽  
...  

1984 ◽  
Vol BME-31 (9) ◽  
pp. 622-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur T. Johnson ◽  
Chin-Shing Lin ◽  
John N. Hochheimer

CHEST Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. 1123A
Author(s):  
O Dene Lewis ◽  
Peter Whitesell ◽  
John Whitesell ◽  
Wesley Granger ◽  
Jafar Vossoughi ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Pan ◽  
A. Saltos ◽  
D. Smith ◽  
A. Johnson ◽  
J. Vossoughi

The airflow perturbation device (APD) has been developed as a portable, easy to use, and a rapid response instrument for measuring respiratory resistance in humans. However, the APD has limited data validating it against the established techniques. This study used a mechanical system to simulate the normal range of human breathing to validate the APD with the clinically accepted impulse oscillometry (IOS) technique. The validation system consisted of a sinusoidal flow generator with ten standardized resistance configurations that were shown to represent a total range of resistances from 0.12 to 0.95 kPa·L−1·s (1.2–9.7 cm H2O·L−1·s). Impulse oscillometry measurements and APD measurements of the mechanical system were recorded and compared at a constant airflow of 0.15 L·s−1. Both the IOS and APD measurments were accurate in assessing nominal resistance. In addition, a strong linear relationship was observed between APD measurements and IOS measurements (R2 = 0.999). A second series of measurements was made on ten human volunteers with external resistors added in their respiratory flow paths. Once calibrated with the mechanical system, the APD gave respiratory resistance measurements within 5% of IOS measurements. Because of their comparability to IOS measurements, APD measurements are shown to be valid representations of respiratory resistance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document