) (p=ns). The tcm PO, variations (I.P.P.V. vs aerosol) did not show any significant statistical difference. At the end of the therapies the tcm POe falls a little more after I.P.P.V. than after aerosol (5Z (~ 7.3 vs 64+11, p=ns); the tcm PCO, base values are similar during the two therapies (41.2+ 7 vs 42. 7+-4.5, p=ns), but the tcm PCO, decrements reach a significant statistical diJJ~renc'e after 8-10-12-16 minutes (p