We therefore compared the values obtained during the CO2 trial with the CO2 RFB session of the RFB group to accurately reflect the effects of biofeedback relaxation
October 17th, 2014 | Author: Pain
We have demonstrated that RFB can significantly (p < 0.05) reduce the CHBK EMG from 4.89 ± 0.71 |xV (CO2 trial) to 3.54 ± 0.54 |xV (CO2 RFB session) at an ETCO2 of 70 mm Hg, which is a reduction of 1.35 ± 0.62. This is a greater reduction than the maximum reduction in CHBK EMG of 0.89 volts reported by Holliday and Hyers for EMG relaxation feedback, showing that RFB is as effective or more effective in producing relaxation as EMG relaxation feedback, even though the CO2 rebreathing is considerably more stressful than the weaning trials used by Holliday and Hyers.
RFB also significantly reduced the subject values of P100, MEEG, Vi, Vt/Ti, and RR, which supports previous findings in healthy subjects that sleep or drowsy and meditative states decrease the RP response to CO2 during CO2 rebreath-ing, when compared to CO2 rebreathing in a normal awake state. However, this has not been previously demonstrated for patients receiving mechanical ventilation.During the CO2 trial session of the RFB group there was a greater increase in RPs than for the CO2 trial session of the control group, despite their having similar baseline values Viagra Australia. The differences are not significantly different and likely represent individual variations in CO2 response. We therefore compared the values obtained during the CO2 trial with the CO2 RFB session of the RFB group to accurately reflect the effects of biofeedback relaxation. The RPs of the CO2 RFB response curves are shifted to the right, and there is a flattening of the slope similar to those seen in previous studies. The 12% reduction in the mean value of VI for RFB is less than the reduction reported by Bulow for the drowsy state and is similar to the reductions reported by Wolkove and coworkers for the meditative state in healthy subjects.
This is not surprising given the stressful environment of the ICU, which makes relaxation difficult. The significant reduction in RR, but not in Vt, shows that the significant reduction in VI is due to a reduction in RR and not due to a reduction in Vt. Brewis et al have stated that a > 15% change in lung function is considered to be clinically significant. Thus, the 23% reduction in P100 is clinically significant, and the 12% reduction in VI is close to clinical significance. The control group showed no significant change in parameters reflecting the NRD between the CO2 trial and CO2 NFB session. These results support the idea that biofeedback can reduce parameters reflecting NRD in patients who are receiving mechanical ventilation.