Cargando…

Variability in expiratory flow requirements among oscillatory positive expiratory pressure

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morgan, Sherwin E., Mosakowski, Steven, Giles, Brenda L., Naureckas, Edward, Tung, Avery
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7055957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32181326
http://dx.doi.org/10.29390/cjrt-2019-025
_version_ 1783503453502308352
author Morgan, Sherwin E.
Mosakowski, Steven
Giles, Brenda L.
Naureckas, Edward
Tung, Avery
author_facet Morgan, Sherwin E.
Mosakowski, Steven
Giles, Brenda L.
Naureckas, Edward
Tung, Avery
author_sort Morgan, Sherwin E.
collection PubMed
description 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 H(2)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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7055957
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70559572020-03-16 Variability in expiratory flow requirements among oscillatory positive expiratory pressure Morgan, Sherwin E. Mosakowski, Steven Giles, Brenda L. Naureckas, Edward Tung, Avery Can J Respir Ther Research Article 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 H(2)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. Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists 2020-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7055957/ /pubmed/32181326 http://dx.doi.org/10.29390/cjrt-2019-025 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This open-access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits reuse, distribution and reproduction of the article, provided that the original work is properly cited and the reuse is restricted to noncommercial purposes. For commercial reuse, contact editor@csrt.com
spellingShingle Research Article
Morgan, Sherwin E.
Mosakowski, Steven
Giles, Brenda L.
Naureckas, Edward
Tung, Avery
Variability in expiratory flow requirements among oscillatory positive expiratory pressure
title Variability in expiratory flow requirements among oscillatory positive expiratory pressure
title_full Variability in expiratory flow requirements among oscillatory positive expiratory pressure
title_fullStr Variability in expiratory flow requirements among oscillatory positive expiratory pressure
title_full_unstemmed Variability in expiratory flow requirements among oscillatory positive expiratory pressure
title_short Variability in expiratory flow requirements among oscillatory positive expiratory pressure
title_sort variability in expiratory flow requirements among oscillatory positive expiratory pressure
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7055957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32181326
http://dx.doi.org/10.29390/cjrt-2019-025
work_keys_str_mv AT morgansherwine variabilityinexpiratoryflowrequirementsamongoscillatorypositiveexpiratorypressure
AT mosakowskisteven variabilityinexpiratoryflowrequirementsamongoscillatorypositiveexpiratorypressure
AT gilesbrendal variabilityinexpiratoryflowrequirementsamongoscillatorypositiveexpiratorypressure
AT naureckasedward variabilityinexpiratoryflowrequirementsamongoscillatorypositiveexpiratorypressure
AT tungavery variabilityinexpiratoryflowrequirementsamongoscillatorypositiveexpiratorypressure