Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Meeting abstract
  • Open Access

Comfort levels of six CPAP delivery systems

  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 1,
  • 3 and
Critical Care20026 (Suppl 1) :P39

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc1738

  • Published:

Keywords

  • Performance Characteristic
  • Pressure Deviation
  • Similar Performance
  • Pressure Fluctuation
  • Comfort Level

Objectives

Not all CPAP systems have similar performance characteristics [1]. We aimed to assess comfort levels using six different CPAP delivery systems.

Methods

Six healthy blinded volunteers subjectively ranked each system for ease of breathing and comfort. The CPAP systems were set to 5 cmH2O CPAP via standardised tubing, mouthpiece and nasal clips. Pressure, flow and volume at the mouthpiece were measured using an Datex AS3 monitor and logged to PC.

Results

The pressure fluctuations between inspiration and expiration at 25 l/min correlated well with the subjective ranking (P = 0.017), with differences most evident in the expiratory phase of the cycle (P = 0.04).

Conclusions

CPAP systems that minimise pressure fluctuations are more comfortable. Patient comfort can be improved by choosing and setting CPAP systems to minimise pressure fluctuations.

Table

  

Pressure deviation (cmH2O) from CPAP level at 25 l/min flow

CPAP delivery system

Subjective ranking

Inspiration

Expiration

Overall

Respironics Vision

1

-0.8

-0.1

0.6

Respironics S/T

2

-0.6

0.1

0.8

Drager Evita 4 (NIV)

3

-1.1

1.3

2.4

Drager Evita 4

4

-1.1

1.3

2.5

Drager CF 800

5

-1.3

0.7

2.0

Siemens Servo 300

6

-1.1

2.3

3.4

Spearman Correlation with ranking P value

 

-0.76

0.83

0.89

  

0.084

0.04

0.017

NIV, new non-invasive software.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Critical Care Directorate, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, CF14 4XW, UK
(2)
Department of Anaesthetics and Intensive Care, UWCM, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK
(3)
Emergency and Critical Care, Osaka General Hospital, Japan

References

  1. Austin PN, et al.: Work of breathing characteristics of seven portable ventilators. Resuscitation 2001, 49: 158-167. 10.1016/S0300-9572(00)00358-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement