Comparison of 6 Oscillatory Positive Expiratory Pressure Devices During Active Expiratory Flow.
OPEP
air flow oscillations
airway clearance techniques
mechanical evaluation
oscillatory positive expiratory pressure
physiotherapy
secretion clearance
Journal
Respiratory care
ISSN: 1943-3654
Titre abrégé: Respir Care
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7510357
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
21
11
2019
medline:
29
1
2021
entrez:
21
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Air-flow oscillations generated by exhaling through oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) devices favor airway clearance. Variations in mechanical properties between different devices may influence therapeutic efficacy. The objective of this study was to assess mechanical properties in vitro and to compare the performance of 6 OPEP devices at different resistance levels under active expiratory flow patterns. 4 gravity-dependent OPEP devices (ie, Flutter, Gelomuc, Pari O-PEP, Shaker Medic Plus) and 2 gravity-independent OPEP devices (ie, Acapella Choice and Aerobika) were each tested at low, medium, and high resistance settings. All devices were independently connected to a pulmonary waveform generator that reproduced active exhalation flows. Expiratory flow-volume curves were retrieved from 4 subjects with different stages of obstruction severity and were scaled according to either peak expiratory flow (4, 6, and 8 L/s) or volumes (2, 3 and 4 L), thus amounting to 24 active exhalations. Resulting waveforms were divided into 4 parts and the 2 middle parts were used to extract the following mechanical data: positive expiratory pressure (PEP), maximum expiratory pressure (P Mechanistic effects of the Acapella, Aerobika, and Shaker devices were not comparable. The Flutter, Gelomuc, and Pari devices behaved similarly and achieved more tests with optimum oscillation frequency and PEP values than the other devices. These 3 devices also produced the highest oscillation amplitudes at the low-resistance level, whereas the Aerobika elicited higher and consistent oscillation amplitudes at medium and high resistance settings. Operational parameters differed between and within devices, yet the Flutter, Gelomuc, and Pari devices were similar in many aspects. Therapeutic efficacy may depend on the selected OPEP device and set resistance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Air-flow oscillations generated by exhaling through oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) devices favor airway clearance. Variations in mechanical properties between different devices may influence therapeutic efficacy. The objective of this study was to assess mechanical properties in vitro and to compare the performance of 6 OPEP devices at different resistance levels under active expiratory flow patterns.
METHODS
METHODS
4 gravity-dependent OPEP devices (ie, Flutter, Gelomuc, Pari O-PEP, Shaker Medic Plus) and 2 gravity-independent OPEP devices (ie, Acapella Choice and Aerobika) were each tested at low, medium, and high resistance settings. All devices were independently connected to a pulmonary waveform generator that reproduced active exhalation flows. Expiratory flow-volume curves were retrieved from 4 subjects with different stages of obstruction severity and were scaled according to either peak expiratory flow (4, 6, and 8 L/s) or volumes (2, 3 and 4 L), thus amounting to 24 active exhalations. Resulting waveforms were divided into 4 parts and the 2 middle parts were used to extract the following mechanical data: positive expiratory pressure (PEP), maximum expiratory pressure (P
RESULTS
RESULTS
Mechanistic effects of the Acapella, Aerobika, and Shaker devices were not comparable. The Flutter, Gelomuc, and Pari devices behaved similarly and achieved more tests with optimum oscillation frequency and PEP values than the other devices. These 3 devices also produced the highest oscillation amplitudes at the low-resistance level, whereas the Aerobika elicited higher and consistent oscillation amplitudes at medium and high resistance settings.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Operational parameters differed between and within devices, yet the Flutter, Gelomuc, and Pari devices were similar in many aspects. Therapeutic efficacy may depend on the selected OPEP device and set resistance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31744866
pii: respcare.07271
doi: 10.4187/respcare.07271
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
492-499Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by Daedalus Enterprises.