Comparing the Performance Characteristics of Different Positive Expiratory Pressure Devices
| Autor: | Stephanie T. Yerkovich, Lisa J. Franks, Norman R. Morris, Guillermo Jacuinde, Kathleen Hall, James R. Walsh |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
positive expiratory pressure device Comparative Effectiveness Research Airway clearance education Flow (psychology) Clinical settings airway clearance Positive expiratory pressure Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine Positive-Pressure Respiration 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine airway clearance techniques Materials Testing Pulmonary Elimination Humans Medicine Airway Management physiotherapy Physical Therapy Modalities business.industry Oscillation Equipment Design General Medicine Chest Wall Oscillation High resistance Amplitude 030228 respiratory system PEP cardiovascular system Flutter business circulatory and respiratory physiology Biomedical engineering |
| Zdroj: | Respiratory Care. 64:434-444 |
| ISSN: | 1943-3654 0020-1324 |
| DOI: | 10.4187/respcare.06410 |
| Popis: | BACKGROUND: Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) devices are widely used in clinical settings, yet the performance characteristics of these devices remain relatively unknown. This study compared the performance characteristics of 6 airway clearance devices by varying resistance and flow. METHODS: Mean PEP, peak PEP, oscillation frequency, and amplitude PEP of the Flutter, Pari PEP S, Acapella Choice, Acapella DM, Acapella DH, and Aerobika devices were obtained across flows of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 L/min and at low, medium, and high resistance using an experimental apparatus custom-built for this bench study. RESULTS: Performance characteristics of the devices differed across flows and resistance settings (device × flow/resistance interaction; P < .001). At a fixed resistance, increasing flows increased mean PEP produced by the Acapella Choice, Acapella DH, Aerobika, and Pari PEP S. Increasing flow resulted in minimal change in mean PEP produced by the Flutter and Acapella DM. Increasing flow increased peak PEP and amplitude PEP produced by all devices except the Acapella DH and Acapella Choice. Increasing flow maintained or increased oscillation frequency for all devices except the Flutter. At a fixed flow, increasing resistance increased mean PEP produced by all devices except the Acapella Choice. Increasing resistance increased peak PEP produced by the Acapella DM, Aerobika, and Pari PEP S but resulted in minimal change in peak PEP for the Flutter and Acapella Choice. Increasing resistance either maintained or increased oscillation frequency for all devices. Amplitude PEP was either maintained or increased during oscillations when increasing resistance for all devices except the Flutter. CONCLUSIONS: PEP devices produced small but statistically significant variations in performance characteristics across a range of flows and resistance settings. There appear to be flow-dependent and non–flow-dependent devices. Varying flow or resistance typically maintained or increased the production of mean, peak, and amplitude PEP and oscillation frequency. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|