Search

The upper airway wall impedance (Zuaw) may be responsible for a large artifact in the measurement of respiratory system impedance (Zrs) in children. In 17 normal children aged 3.5-13 years Zuaw and Zrs were estimated by varying transrespiratory pressure directly at the mouth (conventional method: Z1) and around the subject's head (head generator method: Z2) from 4 to 32 Hz. Zrs and Zuaw were calculated from Z1 = Zrs.Zuaw/(Zrs+Zuaw) and Z2 = Zrs (1 + Zp/Zuaw), where Zp is the impedance of the pneumotachograph. From the real and imaginary part of Z1, Z2, Zrs, and Zuaw, the corresponding resistance, inertance, compliance and resonant frequency were calculated assuming simple RIC models. No significant difference was found between the mean +/- SE of parameters derived from Zrs (respectively, 6.8 +/- 0.4 cmH2O.L-1.s, 0.034 +/- 0.001 cmH2O.L-1.s2, 10.4 +/- 0.8 m.cmH2O-1, 9.1 +/- 0.3 Hz) and Z2 (6.8 +/- 0.4 cmH2O.L-1.s, 0.038 +/- 0.002 cmH2O.L-1.s2, 10.7 +/- 0.7 ml.cmH2O-1, 8.7 +/- 0.4 Hz). All but the compliance, derived from Z1 were significantly different (P less than 0.01) from those derived from Zrs (5.3 +/- 0.3 cmH2O.L-1.s, 0.008 +/- 0.001 cmH2O.L-1.s2, 11.9 +/- 1.2 ml.cmH2O-1, and 20.3 +/- 1.6 Hz). Respiratory resistance and compliance correlated significantly with height (r = -0.56 and 0.86, respectively), in contrast to upper airway wall resistance (Ruaw) and compliance (Cuaw). Ruaw (8.6 +/- 0.8 cmH2O.L-1.s), Cuaw (1.2 +/- 0.2 m.cmH2O-1), and upper airway wall inertance (0.030 +/- 0.004 cmH2O.L-1.s2) were close to those obtained by direct measurements in adults. The mechanical properties of the upper airway wall are responsible for a significant error in the measurement of Zrs by the conventional method in normal children. Most of the artifact may be corrected for by applying pressure around the child's head.

The real--Re(Z)--and imaginary--Im(Z)--parts of the ventilatory system impedance were measured between 6 and 30 Hz in 18 normal infants and in 19 with airway obstruction. The intercept (R0) and slope (S) of the Re(Z)-frequency function, as well as inertance (I) and compliance (C) estimated from Im(Z), were compared with ventilatory system resistance (Rrs) and compliance (Crs) (single-breath method). R0 correlated significantly with Rrs (r = 0.86), although the slope of the regression equation was significantly lower than 1 (P less than 0.01). Negative frequency dependence of Re(Z) was observed in all subjects and a significant correlation was found between S and Rrs (r = -0.80). "Inertance" was negative in 20 subjects and correlated negatively with Rrs (r = -0.61). C correlated with Crs (r = 0.64) and with 1/Rrs (r = 0.85). The ratio of C to Crs (mean +/- SD = 0.168 +/- 0.082) also correlated with 1/Rrs (r = 0.51). The main characteristics of the total impedance/frequency function could be simulated with a model featuring the upper airway wall (Zuaw) in parallel with the ventilatory system (Zrs). It is suggested that the differential change in Zuaw and Zrs with growth accounts for the marked frequency dependence of Re(Z) as well as the inaccurate estimation of both I and C in this population.

Two methods of measuring ventilatory mechanical impedance (Z) by forced oscillations between 6 and 20 Hz were compared in 24 infants aged 2 to 49 months: 1) the application of pressure oscillations at the airway opening (Z1); and 2) the application of pressure oscillations around the head (Z2). The latter has been recently proposed to minimize the influence of compliant upper airway walls (Peslin et al., J Appl Physiol. 1985, 59:1790-1795). Ventilatory resistance and compliance (Rsb, Csb) were also obtained with the single breath method. The real part of Z1 (R1) was markedly lower than that of the corresponding Z2 (R2), at any frequency. R1 exhibited a systematic negative frequency dependence, in contrast with R2. At any frequency, the slope of the regression equation on Rsb was closer to unity for R2 than for R1. The imaginary part of Z1 (X1) was negative over the whole frequency interval, and negative values of inertance were derived from X1. X2 was negative at low and positive at high frequencies. Resonant frequency (mean +/- SD = 10.5 +/- 3.5 Hz) was always reached with Z2 and correlated negatively with body weight (r = -0.61). Inertance estimated from X2 was positive and correlated negatively with body height (r = -0.66). The compliance derived from Z1 (C1 = 3.35 +/- 2.32 10(-3) L.cm H2O-1) was not significantly different from that derived from Z2 (C2 = 2.99 +/- 2.02 10(-3) L.cm H2O-1). The marked difference observed between Z1 and Z2 is related to the importance of the upper airway shunt and may be explained by inaccuracies of both methods.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)