{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0463038180341186, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03736799350121852, 'mean_word_length': 4.980582524271845, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Airway pressure and transcutaneous O2 and CO2 partial pressure as monitoring measurements for high-frequency jet ventilation?].

Two different methods of measuring airway pressures (n = 7), and the usefulness of transcutaneous pO2 and pCO2 measurement (n = 9) in monitoring High Frequency Jet Ventilation (HFJV), were investigated in critically ill patients. Airway pressures obtained by tip manometer from different points within trachea and mainstem bronchi during HFJV (f = 100/min, inspiratory time 40%, FIO2 0,4, minute volume 25.6 +/- 5.2 l) were nearly identical with pressures obtained from the integrated pressure line of HI-LO-JET endotracheal tubes (R = 0.9638). There was no difference between proximal and peripheral airway pressures. When using a PEEP-valve, rather high values of PEEP may occur due to gas trapping. There was sufficient correlation between transcutaneous and arterial pO2 (R = 0.7573) and poor correlation between transcutaneous and arterial pCO2 (R = 0.4987). paO2 values were 51.1% above, paCO2 values 33.4% below transcutaneous values. Transcutaneous measurement of pO2 and pCO2 is only an additional method in monitoring HFJV which can reveal rough trends but cannot replace blood gas analysis.