var bibbase_data = {"data":"\"Loading..\"\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n
\n generated by\n \n \"bibbase.org\"\n\n \n
\n \n\n
\n\n \n\n\n
\n\n Excellent! Next you can\n create a new website with this list, or\n embed it in an existing web page by copying & pasting\n any of the following snippets.\n\n
\n JavaScript\n (easiest)\n
\n \n <script src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FQ3K49PJH%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DhGXLq241MCQA3ow7rlTIV2gY%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1&jsonp=1\"></script>\n \n
\n\n PHP\n
\n \n <?php\n $contents = file_get_contents(\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FQ3K49PJH%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DhGXLq241MCQA3ow7rlTIV2gY%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1\");\n print_r($contents);\n ?>\n \n
\n\n iFrame\n (not recommended)\n
\n \n <iframe src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FQ3K49PJH%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DhGXLq241MCQA3ow7rlTIV2gY%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1\"></iframe>\n \n
\n\n

\n For more details see the documention.\n

\n
\n
\n\n
\n\n This is a preview! To use this list on your own web site\n or create a new web site from it,\n create a free account. The file will be added\n and you will be able to edit it in the File Manager.\n We will show you instructions once you've created your account.\n
\n\n
\n\n

To the site owner:

\n\n

Action required! Mendeley is changing its\n API. In order to keep using Mendeley with BibBase past April\n 14th, you need to:\n

    \n
  1. renew the authorization for BibBase on Mendeley, and
    2. \n
  2. update the BibBase URL\n in your page the same way you did when you initially set up\n this page.\n
    3. \n
\n

\n\n

\n \n \n Fix it now\n

\n
\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n  \n 2021\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness: a randomised controlled trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Harper, J.; Kearns, N.; Bird, G.; Braithwaite, I.; Eathorne, A.; Shortt, N.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 8(1): e000843. August 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"AutomaticPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{harper_automatic_2021,\n\ttitle = {Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness: a randomised controlled trial},\n\tvolume = {8},\n\tissn = {2052-4439},\n\tshorttitle = {Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness},\n\turl = {https://bmjopenrespres.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000843},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000843},\n\tabstract = {Background\n              \n                Guideline recommendations state oxygen should be administered to acutely unwell patients to achieve a target oxygen saturation (SpO\n                2\n                ) range. The current practice of manual oxygen titration frequently results in SpO\n                2\n                outside of a prescribed range. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of automatic oxygen titration using a closed-loop feedback system to achieve SpO\n                2\n                within a prescribed target range\n              \n            \n            \n              Methods\n              \n                An open-label randomised parallel group trial was undertaken comparing automatic oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device to manual oxygen titration using nasal high flow. Medical inpatients requiring oxygen therapy in Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand with a prescribed target SpO\n                2\n                range of 88\\%–92\\% or 92\\%–96\\% were recruited and randomised equally between the interventions for a period of 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of time spent with SpO\n                2\n                within the prescribed range.\n              \n            \n            \n              Results\n              \n                20 patients were included in the analysis. Automatic oxygen titration resulted in a median (IQR) 96.2\\% (95.2–97.8) of time within the target range compared with 71\\% (59.4–88.3) with manual titration; difference (95\\% CI) 24.2\\% (7.9\\% to 35\\%), p{\\textless}0.001. There was a reduction in the time spent with SpO\n                2\n                ≥2\\% above and ≥2\\% below range in the automatic titration group, although the point estimate for the differences were small; −1\\% (−8.2\\% to −0.04\\%), p=0.017 and −2.4\\% (−11.5\\% to 0.3\\%), p=0.05 respectively.\n              \n            \n            \n              Conclusions\n              \n                Nasal high-flow with automatic oxygen titration resulted in a greater proportion of time spent with SpO\n                2\n                in target range compared with manual titration.\n              \n            \n            \n              Trial registration\n              The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000901101).},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-10-02},\n\tjournal = {BMJ Open Respiratory Research},\n\tauthor = {Harper, James and Kearns, Nethmi and Bird, Grace and Braithwaite, Irene and Eathorne, Allie and Shortt, Nicholas and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {e000843},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background Guideline recommendations state oxygen should be administered to acutely unwell patients to achieve a target oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) range. The current practice of manual oxygen titration frequently results in SpO 2 outside of a prescribed range. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of automatic oxygen titration using a closed-loop feedback system to achieve SpO 2 within a prescribed target range Methods An open-label randomised parallel group trial was undertaken comparing automatic oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device to manual oxygen titration using nasal high flow. Medical inpatients requiring oxygen therapy in Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand with a prescribed target SpO 2 range of 88%–92% or 92%–96% were recruited and randomised equally between the interventions for a period of 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of time spent with SpO 2 within the prescribed range. Results 20 patients were included in the analysis. Automatic oxygen titration resulted in a median (IQR) 96.2% (95.2–97.8) of time within the target range compared with 71% (59.4–88.3) with manual titration; difference (95% CI) 24.2% (7.9% to 35%), p\\textless0.001. There was a reduction in the time spent with SpO 2 ≥2% above and ≥2% below range in the automatic titration group, although the point estimate for the differences were small; −1% (−8.2% to −0.04%), p=0.017 and −2.4% (−11.5% to 0.3%), p=0.05 respectively. Conclusions Nasal high-flow with automatic oxygen titration resulted in a greater proportion of time spent with SpO 2 in target range compared with manual titration. Trial registration The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000901101).\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Closed-Loop Oxygen Control Using a Novel Nasal High-Flow Device: A Randomized Crossover Trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Harper, J. C.; Kearns, N. A; Maijers, I.; Bird, G. E; Braithwaite, I.; Shortt, N. P; Eathorne, A.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Respiratory Care, 66(3): 416–424. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Closed-LoopPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{harper_closed-loop_2021,\n\ttitle = {Closed-{Loop} {Oxygen} {Control} {Using} a {Novel} {Nasal} {High}-{Flow} {Device}: {A} {Randomized} {Crossover} {Trial}},\n\tvolume = {66},\n\tissn = {0020-1324, 1943-3654},\n\tshorttitle = {Closed-{Loop} {Oxygen} {Control} {Using} a {Novel} {Nasal} {High}-{Flow} {Device}},\n\turl = {http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/doi/10.4187/respcare.08087},\n\tdoi = {10.4187/respcare.08087},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {Respiratory Care},\n\tauthor = {Harper, James CP and Kearns, Nethmi A and Maijers, Ingrid and Bird, Grace E and Braithwaite, Irene and Shortt, Nicholas P and Eathorne, Allie and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {416--424},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2019\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Nasal high‐flow therapy compared with non‐invasive ventilation in COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure: A randomized controlled cross‐over trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n McKinstry, S.; Singer, J.; Baarsma, J. P.; Weatherall, M.; Beasley, R.; and Fingleton, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Respirology, 24(11): 1081–1087. November 2019.\n Number: 11\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"NasalPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{mckinstry_nasal_2019,\n\ttitle = {Nasal high‐flow therapy compared with non‐invasive ventilation in {COPD} patients with chronic respiratory failure: {A} randomized controlled cross‐over trial},\n\tvolume = {24},\n\tissn = {1323-7799, 1440-1843},\n\tshorttitle = {Nasal high‐flow therapy compared with non‐invasive ventilation in {COPD} patients with chronic respiratory failure},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/resp.13575},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/resp.13575},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {11},\n\turldate = {2020-08-23},\n\tjournal = {Respirology},\n\tauthor = {McKinstry, Steven and Singer, Joseph and Baarsma, Jan Pieter and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard and Fingleton, James},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tnote = {Number: 11},\n\tpages = {1081--1087},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Protocol for a randomised, single-blind, two-arm, parallel-group controlled trial of the efficacy of rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Bird, G.; Braithwaite, I.; Harper, J.; McKinstry, S.; Koorevaar, I.; Fingleton, J.; Semprini, A.; Dilcher, M.; Jennings, L.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ Open, 9(6): e028098. June 2019.\n Number: 6\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ProtocolPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{bird_protocol_2019,\n\ttitle = {Protocol for a randomised, single-blind, two-arm, parallel-group controlled trial of the efficacy of rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold},\n\tvolume = {9},\n\tissn = {2044-6055, 2044-6055},\n\turl = {http://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028098},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028098},\n\tabstract = {Introduction\n              The common cold is the most common infectious disease affecting humans. It is usually a self-limiting disease; however, the common cold can cause significant morbidity and has a substantial economic impact on society. Human rhinoviruses (HRVs), which cause up to two-thirds of colds, have temperature-dependent replication and most HRV strains replicate optimally at 33°C. Delivery of heated, humidified air to the upper airways has the potential to reduce viral replication, but evidence of the effectiveness of this treatment of the common cold is inconclusive. We plan to test the hypothesis that delivery of humidified air heated to 41°C at high flow, nasal high flow rhinothermy (rNHF), for 2 hours daily for five days is more effective in reducing common cold symptom severity and duration than five days of ‘sham’ rhinothermy.\n            \n            \n              Methods and analysis\n              This is a randomised, single-blind, parallel-group trial comparing rNHF to ‘sham’ rhinothermy in the treatment of common cold. We plan to recruit 170 participants within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms of common cold and randomise them 1:1 to receive one of the two treatments for five days. The study duration is 14 days, which includes clinic visits on the first day of randomisation and four days post-randomisation, and a phone call on the 14th day. Participants will complete daily symptom diaries which include a symptom score, the Modified Jackson Score (MJS). The primary outcome is the MJS after four days.\n            \n            \n              Ethics and dissemination\n              New Zealand Ethics Registration: 17/STH/174. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, presented at academic meetings, and reported to participants.\n            \n            \n              Trial registration number\n              U1111-1194-4345 and ACTRN12617001340325; Pre-results.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\turldate = {2020-08-23},\n\tjournal = {BMJ Open},\n\tauthor = {Bird, Grace and Braithwaite, Irene and Harper, James and McKinstry, Steven and Koorevaar, Iris and Fingleton, James and Semprini, Alex and Dilcher, Meik and Jennings, Lance and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = jun,\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tnote = {Number: 6},\n\tpages = {e028098},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Introduction The common cold is the most common infectious disease affecting humans. It is usually a self-limiting disease; however, the common cold can cause significant morbidity and has a substantial economic impact on society. Human rhinoviruses (HRVs), which cause up to two-thirds of colds, have temperature-dependent replication and most HRV strains replicate optimally at 33°C. Delivery of heated, humidified air to the upper airways has the potential to reduce viral replication, but evidence of the effectiveness of this treatment of the common cold is inconclusive. We plan to test the hypothesis that delivery of humidified air heated to 41°C at high flow, nasal high flow rhinothermy (rNHF), for 2 hours daily for five days is more effective in reducing common cold symptom severity and duration than five days of ‘sham’ rhinothermy. Methods and analysis This is a randomised, single-blind, parallel-group trial comparing rNHF to ‘sham’ rhinothermy in the treatment of common cold. We plan to recruit 170 participants within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms of common cold and randomise them 1:1 to receive one of the two treatments for five days. The study duration is 14 days, which includes clinic visits on the first day of randomisation and four days post-randomisation, and a phone call on the 14th day. Participants will complete daily symptom diaries which include a symptom score, the Modified Jackson Score (MJS). The primary outcome is the MJS after four days. Ethics and dissemination New Zealand Ethics Registration: 17/STH/174. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, presented at academic meetings, and reported to participants. Trial registration number U1111-1194-4345 and ACTRN12617001340325; Pre-results.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Protocol for a randomised, single-blind, two-arm, parallel-group controlled trial of the efficacy of rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Bird, G.; Braithwaite, I.; Harper, J.; McKinstry, S.; Koorevaar, I.; Fingleton, J.; Semprini, A.; Dilcher, M.; Jennings, L.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ Open, 9(6): e028098. 2019.\n Number: 6\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ProtocolPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{bird_protocol_2019-1,\n\ttitle = {Protocol for a randomised, single-blind, two-arm, parallel-group controlled trial of the efficacy of rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold},\n\tvolume = {9},\n\tissn = {2044-6055},\n\turl = {http://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028098},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028098},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tjournal = {BMJ Open},\n\tauthor = {Bird, Grace and Braithwaite, Irene and Harper, James and McKinstry, Steven and Koorevaar, Iris and Fingleton, James and Semprini, Alex and Dilcher, Meik and Jennings, Lance and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tnote = {Number: 6},\n\tpages = {e028098},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Nasal high‐flow therapy compared with non‐invasive ventilation in COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure: A randomized controlled cross‐over trial.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n McKinstry, S.; Singer, J.; Pieter Baarsma, J.; Weatherall, M.; Beasley, R.; and Fingleton, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Respirology. 2019.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{mckinstry_nasal_2019-1,\n\ttitle = {Nasal high‐flow therapy compared with non‐invasive ventilation in {COPD} patients with chronic respiratory failure: {A} randomized controlled cross‐over trial},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/resp.13575},\n\tjournal = {Respirology},\n\tauthor = {McKinstry, Steven and Singer, Joseph and Pieter Baarsma, Jan and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard and Fingleton, James},\n\tyear = {2019},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2018\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Randomised controlled trial of rhinothermy for treatment of the common cold: A feasibility study.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n van de Hei, S.; McKinstry, S.; Bardsley, G.; Weatherall, M.; Beasley, R.; and Fingleton, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ Open, 8: e019350. 2018.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{van_de_hei_randomised_2018,\n\ttitle = {Randomised controlled trial of rhinothermy for treatment of the common cold: {A} feasibility study},\n\tvolume = {8},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019350},\n\tjournal = {BMJ Open},\n\tauthor = {van de Hei, Susanne and McKinstry, Steven and Bardsley, George and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard and Fingleton, James},\n\tyear = {2018},\n\tpages = {e019350},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2017\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Venous haemodynamics of Jet Impulse Technology within a lower limb fibreglass cast: a randomized controlled trial.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Schwarzenlander, K.; Buchanan, S.; Mackintosh, S.; Braithwaite, I.; and De Ruyter, B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n JRSM Open, 8(2): 205427041668174. 2017.\n Number: 2\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{schwarzenlander_venous_2017,\n\ttitle = {Venous haemodynamics of {Jet} {Impulse} {Technology} within a lower limb fibreglass cast: a randomized controlled trial},\n\tvolume = {8},\n\tissn = {2054-2704},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/2054270416681746},\n\tabstract = {Objectives: We investigated popliteal venous haemodynamics of the VenaJet Jet Impulse Technology system within a below-knee fibreglass cast. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Participants: Twenty-four healthy participants aged 18–54 had both feet placed within the Jet Impulse Technology system and were randomised for one or other leg to be within a below-knee fibreglass cast. Setting: Pacific Radiology, Lower Hutt, Wellington Main outcome measures: The primary outcome variable was peak systolic velocity (cm/s) compared between legs with and without the cast at 60 min (after 10 min Jet Impulse Technology activation), using a mixed linear model and a non-inferiority bound of 4.8 cm/s. Secondary outcome variables were the difference in peak systolic velocity between the casted limb and the non-casted limb at baseline and 40 min after casting, and the difference in mean flow velocity (cm/s), vein diameter (mm), and total volume flow (L/min) between the casted limb and the non-casted limb at baseline, 40 and 60 min. Results: The mean (standard deviation) peak systolic velocity was 4.6(1.5), 4.8(1.1), 28.8(16.1), and 4.3(1.2), 4.8(1.4) and 29.3(19.0) cm/s at baseline, 40 and 60 min in the casted and non-casted leg, respectively. The difference (95\\% confidence interval) between cast and no-cast at 60 min was −0.8 (−6.5 to 4.9) cm/s, P = 0.78. The peak systolic velocity, flow velocity and total volume flow at 40 min were not statistically significantly different from baseline for both casted and non-casted limb. Conclusion: In healthy volunteers, the popliteal venous haemodynamics of the Jet Impulse Technology system was similar between the legs with and without a below-knee fibreglass cast. In-cast Jet Impulse Technology may provide a non-pharmacological option for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for lower-limb cast-immobility.},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tjournal = {JRSM Open},\n\tauthor = {Schwarzenlander, Kerstin and Buchanan, Samantha and Mackintosh, Stephen and Braithwaite, Irene and De Ruyter, Bernadette},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tnote = {Number: 2},\n\tpages = {205427041668174},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Objectives: We investigated popliteal venous haemodynamics of the VenaJet Jet Impulse Technology system within a below-knee fibreglass cast. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Participants: Twenty-four healthy participants aged 18–54 had both feet placed within the Jet Impulse Technology system and were randomised for one or other leg to be within a below-knee fibreglass cast. Setting: Pacific Radiology, Lower Hutt, Wellington Main outcome measures: The primary outcome variable was peak systolic velocity (cm/s) compared between legs with and without the cast at 60 min (after 10 min Jet Impulse Technology activation), using a mixed linear model and a non-inferiority bound of 4.8 cm/s. Secondary outcome variables were the difference in peak systolic velocity between the casted limb and the non-casted limb at baseline and 40 min after casting, and the difference in mean flow velocity (cm/s), vein diameter (mm), and total volume flow (L/min) between the casted limb and the non-casted limb at baseline, 40 and 60 min. Results: The mean (standard deviation) peak systolic velocity was 4.6(1.5), 4.8(1.1), 28.8(16.1), and 4.3(1.2), 4.8(1.4) and 29.3(19.0) cm/s at baseline, 40 and 60 min in the casted and non-casted leg, respectively. The difference (95% confidence interval) between cast and no-cast at 60 min was −0.8 (−6.5 to 4.9) cm/s, P = 0.78. The peak systolic velocity, flow velocity and total volume flow at 40 min were not statistically significantly different from baseline for both casted and non-casted limb. Conclusion: In healthy volunteers, the popliteal venous haemodynamics of the Jet Impulse Technology system was similar between the legs with and without a below-knee fibreglass cast. In-cast Jet Impulse Technology may provide a non-pharmacological option for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for lower-limb cast-immobility.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Nasal high flow therapy and PtCO2 in stable COPD: A randomized controlled cross‐over trial.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n McKinstry, S.; Pilcher, J.; Bardsley, G.; Berry, J.; de Hei, S.; Braithwaite, I.; Fingleton, J.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Respirology, 23. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{mckinstry_nasal_2017,\n\ttitle = {Nasal high flow therapy and {PtCO2} in stable {COPD}: {A} randomized controlled cross‐over trial},\n\tvolume = {23},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/resp.13185},\n\tjournal = {Respirology},\n\tauthor = {McKinstry, Steven and Pilcher, Janine and Bardsley, George and Berry, James and de Hei, Susanne and Braithwaite, Irene and Fingleton, James and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tyear = {2017},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Physiological effects of titrated oxygen via nasal high-flow cannulae in COPD exacerbations: A randomized controlled cross-over trial.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Pilcher, J.; Eastlake, L.; Richards, M.; Power, S.; Cripps, T.; Bibby, S.; Braithwaite, I.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Respirology (Carlton, Vic.), 22. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{pilcher_physiological_2017,\n\ttitle = {Physiological effects of titrated oxygen via nasal high-flow cannulae in {COPD} exacerbations: {A} randomized controlled cross-over trial},\n\tvolume = {22},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/resp.13050},\n\tjournal = {Respirology (Carlton, Vic.)},\n\tauthor = {Pilcher, Janine and Eastlake, Leonie and Richards, Michael and Power, Sharon and Cripps, Terrianne and Bibby, Susan and Braithwaite, Irene and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tyear = {2017},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n High flow or titrated oxygen for obese medical inpatients: A randomised crossover trial.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Pilcher, J.; Richards, M.; Eastlake, L.; J McKinstry, S.; Bardsley, G.; Jefferies, S.; Braithwaite, I.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Medical Journal of Australia, 207: 430–434. 2017.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{pilcher_high_2017,\n\ttitle = {High flow or titrated oxygen for obese medical inpatients: {A} randomised crossover trial},\n\tvolume = {207},\n\tdoi = {10.5694/mja17.00270},\n\tjournal = {The Medical Journal of Australia},\n\tauthor = {Pilcher, Janine and Richards, Michael and Eastlake, Leonie and J McKinstry, Steven and Bardsley, George and Jefferies, Sarah and Braithwaite, Irene and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tpages = {430--434},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2016\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Cohort feasibility study of an intermittent pneumatic compression device within a below-knee cast for the prevention of venous thromboembolism.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Braithwaite, I.; De Ruyter, B.; Semprini, A.; Ebmeier, S.; Kiddle, G.; Willis, N.; Carter, J.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ Open, 6. 2016.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{braithwaite_cohort_2016,\n\ttitle = {Cohort feasibility study of an intermittent pneumatic compression device within a below-knee cast for the prevention of venous thromboembolism},\n\tvolume = {6},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012764},\n\tjournal = {BMJ Open},\n\tauthor = {Braithwaite, Irene and De Ruyter, Bernadette and Semprini, Alex and Ebmeier, Stefan and Kiddle, Grant and Willis, Nigel and Carter, John and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tyear = {2016},\n}\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2015\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Effect of Very-High-Flow Nasal Therapy on Airway Pressure and End-Expiratory Lung Impedance in Healthy Volunteers.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Parke, R. L; Bloch, A.; and McGuinness, S. P\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Respiratory Care, 60(10): 1397 LP – 1403. October 2015.\n Number: 10\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"EffectPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n 
@article{parke_effect_2015,\n\ttitle = {Effect of {Very}-{High}-{Flow} {Nasal} {Therapy} on {Airway} {Pressure} and {End}-{Expiratory} {Lung} {Impedance} in {Healthy} {Volunteers}},\n\tvolume = {60},\n\turl = {http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/60/10/1397.abstract},\n\tdoi = {10.4187/respcare.04028},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUND: Previous research has demonstrated a positive linear correlation between flow delivered and airway pressure generated by high-flow nasal therapy. Current practice is to use flows over a range of 30–60 L/min; however, it is technically possible to apply higher flows. In this study, airway pressure measurements and electrical impedance tomography were used to assess the relationship between flows of up to 100 L/min and changes in lung physiology.METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers were enrolled into this study. A high-flow nasal system capable of delivering a flow of 100 L/min was purpose-built using 2 Optiflow systems. Airway pressure was measured via the nasopharynx, and cumulative changes in end-expiratory lung impedance were recorded using the PulmoVista 500 system at gas flows of 30–100 L/min in increments of 10 L/min.RESULTS: The mean age of study participants was 31 (range 22–44) y, the mean ± SD height was 171.8 ± 7.5 cm, the mean ± SD weight was 69.7 ± 10 kg, and 47\\% were males. Flows ranged from 30 to 100 L/min with resulting mean ± SD airway pressures of 2.7 ± 0.7 to 11.9 ± 2.7 cm H2O. A cumulative and linear increase in end-expiratory lung impedance was observed with increasing flows, as well as a decrease in breathing frequency.CONCLUSIONS: Measured airway pressure and lung impedance increased linearly with increased gas flow. Observed airway pressures were in the range used clinically with face-mask noninvasive ventilation. Developments in delivery systems may result in this therapy being an acceptable alternative to face-mask noninvasive ventilation.},\n\tnumber = {10},\n\tjournal = {Respiratory Care},\n\tauthor = {Parke, Rachael L and Bloch, Andreas and McGuinness, Shay P},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tnote = {Number: 10},\n\tpages = {1397 LP -- 1403},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n BACKGROUND: Previous research has demonstrated a positive linear correlation between flow delivered and airway pressure generated by high-flow nasal therapy. Current practice is to use flows over a range of 30–60 L/min; however, it is technically possible to apply higher flows. In this study, airway pressure measurements and electrical impedance tomography were used to assess the relationship between flows of up to 100 L/min and changes in lung physiology.METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers were enrolled into this study. A high-flow nasal system capable of delivering a flow of 100 L/min was purpose-built using 2 Optiflow systems. Airway pressure was measured via the nasopharynx, and cumulative changes in end-expiratory lung impedance were recorded using the PulmoVista 500 system at gas flows of 30–100 L/min in increments of 10 L/min.RESULTS: The mean age of study participants was 31 (range 22–44) y, the mean ± SD height was 171.8 ± 7.5 cm, the mean ± SD weight was 69.7 ± 10 kg, and 47% were males. Flows ranged from 30 to 100 L/min with resulting mean ± SD airway pressures of 2.7 ± 0.7 to 11.9 ± 2.7 cm H2O. A cumulative and linear increase in end-expiratory lung impedance was observed with increasing flows, as well as a decrease in breathing frequency.CONCLUSIONS: Measured airway pressure and lung impedance increased linearly with increased gas flow. Observed airway pressures were in the range used clinically with face-mask noninvasive ventilation. Developments in delivery systems may result in this therapy being an acceptable alternative to face-mask noninvasive ventilation.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n\n
\n"}; document.write(bibbase_data.data);