| Autor: |
Collins, Kevin P., Gonzales, Joshua F., Russian, Christopher J. |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Respiratory Care; Oct2016, Vol. 61 Issue 10, pOF59-OF59, 1/4p |
| Abstrakt: |
Background: High-How nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy provides high flow rates of heated humidified gas above ambient oxygen level. Multiple systems are available to deliver HFNC therapy. This research examined the variability in distal end-expiratory pressure and distal flow rate measurements between three high-flow nasal cannula systems. Two hypotheses were generated for this study. The first null hypothesis states there will be no statistically significant difference for distal end-expiratory pressure and distal flow rates between the three HFNC devices. The second null hypothesis states there will be no statistically significant difference for distal end-expiratory pressure and distal flow rates for the set flow rates for each HFNC device. Method: HFNC therapy devices in this project included Fisher & Paykel (F&P) AIRVO™ 2, the Vapotherm Precision Flow, and the F&P 850. All systems were connected to Ingmar Medical's RespiTrainer® Advanced manikin head with large high-flow nasal cannulas. Placed on the distal end of the manikin head was a Hans Rudolph 1110A Pneumotach Amplifier One and a Series 3700A, 0-160 LPM, Heated Pneumotach to provide distal end-expiratory pressure and distal flow rate measurements. Measured flow rates and distal pressures were obtained at set flow rates of 10 L/m, 20 L/m, 30 L/m 40 L/m, 50L/m and 60L/m. Data were collected utilizing Dasy Lab® software and results were analyzed with the one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc in SPSS version 22. This study was exempt from IRB. Results: Data were analyzed to assess differences between the three devices and between the set flow rates. There was no significant difference between the three HFNC devices and distal end-expiratory pressure (p=.364) or distal flow rate measutement (p=.2004) There was no significant difference between the set flow rates and distal end-expiratory pressure (p=.149) or distal flow rate measurement (p=.113). Conclusions: The differences we observed between the three devices and the set flow rates did not reach statistical significance. Based on our findings we accept both null hypotheses. However, we found notable differences between the set flow rates and the measured flow rates for two of the devices. Table 1. These differences should be considered when using either HFNC therapy on patients. Additional research is needed to further assess the impact of these differences. Disclosures: All authors have no conflicts of interest or industry relationships to disclose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Supplemental Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
