PEDIATRICS Vol. 65 No. 5 May 1980, pp. 1051-1052
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goldman, S. L.
Right arrow Articles by Dumpit, F. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goldman, S. L.
Right arrow Articles by Dumpit, F. M.

Letters to the Editor

Steven L. Goldman MD1, June P. Brady MB., B Chir2, and Fe M. Dumpit BS2

1 University of Miami, School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33101
2 Childrens Hospital, San Francisco, CA 94118

We appreciate Dr Kattwinkel's concerns and we would like to clarify several of his comments:

1. Comparison of work of breathing—Dr Kattwinkel correctly points out that, by adding the PE 20 sampling catheter, we have increased the resistance of the nasal prongs over their resistance when used clinically. In fact, the catheter does increase the measured resistance of the nasal prongs by about 36%. We must concur that work of breathing measured with the nasal prongs would have been less if the sampling catheter was not present.