In vitro comparison of performance including imposed work of breathing of CPAP systems used in low-resource settings.

Respiratory distress due to preterm birth is a significant cause of death in low-resource settings. The introduction of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) systems to treat respiratory distress significantly reduced mortality in high-resource settings, but CPAP was only recently introduced in low-resource settings due to cost and infrastructure limitations. We evaluated pressure stability and imposed work of breathing (iWOB) of five CPAP systems used in low resource settings: the Fisher and Paykel bubble CPAP, the Diamedica baby CPAP, the Medijet nCPAP generator, and the first (2015) and second (2017) generation commercially available Pumani CPAPs. Pressure changes due to fresh gas flow were evaluated for each system by examining the relationship between flow and pressure at the patient interface for four pressures generated at the bottle (0, 3, 5, and 7 cm H2O); for the Medijet nCPAP generator, no bottle was used. The slope of the resulting relationship was used to calculate system resistance. Poiseuille's law of resistance was used to investigate significant contributors to resistance. Resistance ranged from 0.05 to 1.40 [Formula: see text]; three CPAP devices had resistances < 0.4 [Formula: see text]: the Fisher and Paykel system, the Diamedica system, and the second generation Pumani bubble CPAP. The other two systems, the Medijet nCPAP generator and the first generation Pumani bCPAP, had resistances >1.0 [Formula: see text]. Imposed WOB was measured using an ASL5000 test lung to simulate the breath cycle for an infant (5.5 kg), a term neonate (4.0 kg), and a preterm neonate (2.5 kg). Imposed WOB ranged from 1.4 to 39.5 mJ/breath across all systems and simulated infant sizes. Changes in pressure generated by fresh gas flow, resistance, and iWOB differ between the five systems evaluated under ideal laboratory conditions. The available literature does not indicate that these differences affect clinical outcomes.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

I have read the Journal’s policy and two of the authors (MO, RRK) have the following competing interests: MO, RRK are inventors on a patent (Bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Patent No: US 2015/0258291 A1) for CPAP that has been licensed to 3SD; all royalties have been donated to Rice University. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.