Talk:Ventilation/perfusion ratio

1 not 0.8?
Can anyone explain why the value for V/Q ratio should not be 1 instead of 0.8? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I'd like to suggest that the contents of Ventilation-perfusion inequality be merged into this article, as it is very short, has been tagged with faults since 2007, and this article could do with some expansion. Colds7ream (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I've copied (and minimally modified) the additional data of Ventilation-perfusion inequality (I think that the other information is simply redundant). Should I delete that page?--Gronk (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'll do the cleanup. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mechanism?
Anyone have info on how exactly V/Q matching is maintained normally? HPV and gravity seem to be two factors, anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.queso (talk • contribs) 07:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

High VQ
I'm not a physiologist, but the issue with a high VQ seems to be poorly explained everywhere, and the wording in this article is a bit confusing. If I'm wrong then please correct me, but if not I think this should be emphasised in the pathophysiology section on high VQ:

The issue with a high VQ is not the mismatch per se, but that it reflects conditions where there is a loss of alveolar surface area, such as a PE or emphysema. If this occurs in a small volume of lung it can be compensated as blood will be diverted elsewhere, maintaining PaO2. However if the volume of affected lung is large or the lung was already diseased then this compensation will be inadequate, resulting in hypoxaemia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.239.182 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)