Bunch of weirdos

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

nimbus

Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
13,737
Reaction score
24,185
Last edited:
Are these nerds really talking about lung volumes and capacities?

I would be more along the lines of “holy **** this sucks, why the **** did I agree to do this?”


Thus the title of the thread!

One of them said this with sux.

IMG_0822.jpeg


But then they agreed to try Roc lol.
 
Last edited:
haven’t read the article yet but flow rate is likely more important than just tidal volume


Could be. Higher volumes require higher flows. Maybe that’s what they were craving.

From the article:

“However, if the ventilation was in any way inadequate, then dyspnea dominated the experience and, in some cases, caused marked distress. Subjects were ventilated manually via face mask, with initial tidal volumes of 7 to 10 ml/kg, at 10 to 12/min, targeting the lower end of normocapnia. Despite this, all subjects felt markedly short of breath and all signaled for much greater ventilation. The dyspnea did not resolve until tidal volumes were 12 to 15 ml/kg at 12 to 15/min. Previous studies have also described ongoing dyspnea at normal tidal volumes, in both volunteers and in chronically ventilated patients.4–6”

Assuming they were 70kg, they preferred minute ventilation of 10-15 liters/min. One could maintain normocapnia by rebreathing some of the exhaled gas although they may not like that either.
 
Last edited:
all subjects felt markedly short of breath and all signaled for much greater ventilation.
How did they signal? Did their pupils just dilate to the point you could see their tortured soul? Or did the researchers glove up and check sphincter tone at regular intervals?
 
Top