000			02894nam a22003857a 4500
008			221213s20222022 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a2000-9666
024			_a10.55729/2000-9666.1080 [doi]
024			_ajchim-12-04-114 [pii]
024			_aPMC9533803 [pmc]
040			_aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099			_a36262891
245			_aEffects of Oral Leak Size on Valsalva Responses.
251			_aJournal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives. 12(4):114-120, 2022.
252			_aJ Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 12(4):114-120, 2022.
253			_aJournal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives
260			_c2022
260			_fFY2023
265			_sepublish
266			_d2022-12-13
520			_aConclusions: Oral leak size affected VM hemodynamic parameters and level of difficulty. Oral leak size exceeding 1.01 mm significantly affected phase II L MBP. Level of difficulty rose with increasing leak size and was significantly correlated with increase in phase II L MBP. Copyright © 2022 Greater Baltimore Medical Center.
520			_aIntroduction: We hypothesized that oral leak size, a hitherto unstudied technical variable, would influence hemodynamic responses and difficulty level in executing the Valsalva maneuver (VM).
520			_aMethods: Based on power analysis, 38 healthy participants were included. Oral leak size in random order was 0.35, 0.71, 1.01,1.40 mm. Level of difficulty was rated 1 to 10, with >=7-10 being severe. VM was performed at 40 mmHg expiratory strain for 15 s. Three trials were averaged for each leak size. Data were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA and pairwise comparisons with Tukey adjustment, a mixed effect model, and a generalized linear model.
520			_aResults: Of the 38 participants, 4 were excluded from analysis for protocol deviation. Phase II L mean BP (MBP) was significantly higher with the largest leak versus all others (P < 0.001). TL was significantly lower with the largest leak versus all others (P = 0.0029). Difficulty performing the VM increased significantly with every increase in leak size (P < 0.001), and a significantly higher percentage of participants reported severe difficulty with leak 4 compared with leak 1 (P < 0.001), 2 (P = 0.0068), and 3 (P = 0.0068). There was no significant effect of phase II E SBP decline on phase II L MBP increase (P = 0.0752). Difficulty increased significantly with one unit increase in phase II L MBP (P = 0.0002).
546			_aEnglish
650			_aIN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXED
651			_aMedStar Union Memorial Hospital
656			_aMedicine
657			_aJournal Article
700			_aKhurana, Ramesh K _bMUMH
700			_aMittal, Deepika _bMUMH
790			_aKhurana RK, Mittal D
856			_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.55729/2000-9666.1080 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.55729/2000-9666.1080
942			_cART _dArticle
999			_c82 _d82