Sherwin E Morgan, Steven Mosakowski, Brenda L Giles, Edward Naureckas, Avery Tung
{"title":"Variability in expiratory flow requirements among oscillatory positive expiratory pressure.","authors":"Sherwin E Morgan, Steven Mosakowski, Brenda L Giles, Edward Naureckas, Avery Tung","doi":"10.29390/cjrt-2019-025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) devices facilitate secretion clearance by generating positive end expiratory pressure. However, different device designs may produce different levels of expiratory pressure with the same expiratory flow rate. We bench tested four devices to determine the relationship between expiratory flow and expiratory pressure in each.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A bench model was created to test the gas flow rates required by different OPEP devices to generate target expiratory pressure. Four different devices were tested: Acapella<sup>®</sup> (DH Green, Smiths Medical), AerobiKa<sup>®</sup> (Monaghan Medical Corporation), VibraPEP<sup>®</sup> (Curaplex), and vPEP™ (D R Burton Healthcare). Each OPEP device was tested to determine the expiratory flow needed to generate expiratory pressure thresholds considered appropriate for OPEP therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The expiratory flow required to generate the same expiratory pressure thresholds varied considerably among devices. Valved OPEP devices such as the VibraPEP required less flow than mechanical devices such as the vPEP, Aerobika, and Acapella.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In this bench test of OPEP devices, we found considerable variability in expiratory flow requirements needed to generate an expiratory pressure of >10 cm H<sub>2</sub>O. Our finding suggests that smaller patients or those with limited expiratory airflow due to diseases such as COPD, obesity, chronic congestive heart failure, and restrictive lung disease may have better results when matched to OPEP devices requiring less expiratory airflow.</p>","PeriodicalId":39373,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy","volume":"56 ","pages":"7-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0a/a5/cjrt-2019-025.PMC7055957.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29390/cjrt-2019-025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Introduction: Oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) devices facilitate secretion clearance by generating positive end expiratory pressure. However, different device designs may produce different levels of expiratory pressure with the same expiratory flow rate. We bench tested four devices to determine the relationship between expiratory flow and expiratory pressure in each.
Methods: A bench model was created to test the gas flow rates required by different OPEP devices to generate target expiratory pressure. Four different devices were tested: Acapella® (DH Green, Smiths Medical), AerobiKa® (Monaghan Medical Corporation), VibraPEP® (Curaplex), and vPEP™ (D R Burton Healthcare). Each OPEP device was tested to determine the expiratory flow needed to generate expiratory pressure thresholds considered appropriate for OPEP therapy.
Results: The expiratory flow required to generate the same expiratory pressure thresholds varied considerably among devices. Valved OPEP devices such as the VibraPEP required less flow than mechanical devices such as the vPEP, Aerobika, and Acapella.
Discussion: In this bench test of OPEP devices, we found considerable variability in expiratory flow requirements needed to generate an expiratory pressure of >10 cm H2O. Our finding suggests that smaller patients or those with limited expiratory airflow due to diseases such as COPD, obesity, chronic congestive heart failure, and restrictive lung disease may have better results when matched to OPEP devices requiring less expiratory airflow.
简介:振荡呼气正压(OPEP)装置通过产生呼气末正压促进分泌物清除。然而,不同的装置设计可能在相同的呼气流速下产生不同水平的呼气压力。我们对四种装置进行了台架测试,以确定每种装置的呼气流量和呼气压力之间的关系。方法:建立台架模型,测试不同OPEP装置产生目标呼气压所需的气体流量。测试了四种不同的设备:Acapella®(DH Green, Smiths Medical)、AerobiKa®(Monaghan Medical Corporation)、VibraPEP®(Curaplex)和vPEP™(D R Burton Healthcare)。对每个OPEP装置进行测试,以确定产生适合OPEP治疗的呼气压阈值所需的呼气流量。结果:不同设备产生相同呼气压力阈值所需的呼气流量差异很大。与vPEP、Aerobika和Acapella等机械设备相比,VibraPEP等阀门式OPEP设备所需的流量更少。讨论:在这项OPEP装置的台架试验中,我们发现产生>10 cm H2O的呼气压力所需的呼气流量要求存在相当大的差异。我们的研究结果表明,体型较小的患者或由于COPD、肥胖、慢性充血性心力衰竭和限制性肺部疾病等疾病导致的呼气气流受限的患者,在匹配需要较少呼气气流的OPEP设备时,可能会有更好的效果。
期刊介绍:
The CJRT is published four times a year and represents the interests of respiratory therapists nationally and internationally. The CJRT has been redesigned to act as an educational dissemination tool. The CJRT encourages submission of original articles, papers, commentaries, case studies, literature reviews and directed reading papers. Submissions can be sent to Rita Hansen.