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.
At a fixed flow, increasing resistance increased mean PEP produced by all devices except the Acapella Choice. Increasing flow maintained or increased oscillation frequency for all devices except the Flutter. Increasing flow increased peak PEP and amplitude PEP produced by all devices except the Acapella DH and Acapella Choice. Increasing flow resulted in minimal change in mean PEP produced by the Flutter and Acapella DM. At a fixed resistance, increasing flows increased mean PEP produced by the Acapella Choice, Acapella DH, Aerobika, and Pari PEP S. Performance characteristics of the devices differed across flows and resistance settings (device × flow/resistance interaction P <. Mean 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. This study compared the performance characteristics of 6 airway clearance devices by varying resistance and flow.
Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) devices are widely used in clinical settings, yet the performance characteristics of these devices remain relatively unknown.
0 kommentar(er)
