• Respiratory care · Apr 2019

    Comparing the Performance Characteristics of Different Positive Expiratory Pressure Devices.

    • Lisa J Franks, James R Walsh, Kathleen Hall, Guillermo Jacuinde, Stephanie Yerkovich, and Norman R Morris.
    • Physiotherapy Department, The Prince Charles Hospital, Queensland, Australia. lisa.franks@health.qld.gov.au.
    • Respir Care. 2019 Apr 1; 64 (4): 434444434-444.

    BackgroundPositive 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.MethodsMean 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.ResultsPerformance 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.ConclusionsPEP 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.Copyright © 2019 by Daedalus Enterprises.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…