Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2002;87:F42-F45; doi:10.1136/fn.87.1.F42
Copyright © 2002 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2002;87:F42-F45
© 2002 Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal and Neonatal Edition

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

In vitro comparison of nasal continuous positive airway pressure devices for neonates

A G De Paoli1, C J Morley1, P G Davis1, R Lau1 and E Hingeley2

1 Neonatal Services, Royal Women's Hospital, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
2 Biomedical Engineering Department, Royal Women's Hospital

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr De Paoli, Department of Neonatology, Royal Women's Hospital, 132 Grattan Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia;
depaolit{at}cryptic.rch.unimelb.edu.au

Objective: To compare the resistance in vitro of different devices used for the delivery of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in neonates.

Design: Flows of 4–8 litres/min were passed through a selection of neonatal NCPAP devices (single prong, Duotube, Argyle prong, Hudson prong, Infant Flow Driver), and the resultant fall in pressure measured using a calibrated pressure transducer.

Results: The decrease in pressure (cm H2O) for each device (size in parentheses) at a constant flow of 6 litres/min was: Duotube: (2.5), 21; (3.0), 6.2; (3.5), 2.3; single prong: (2.5), 4.4; (3.0), 2.1; (3.5), 1.2; Argyle prong: (XS), 3.6; (S), 1.9; (L), 1.5; Hudson prong: (0), 3.1; (1), 1.8; (2), 0.6; (3), 0.4; (4), 0.3; Infant Flow Driver: (small), 0.3; (medium), -0.3; (large), -0.5.

Conclusions: A large variation in the potential fall in pressure may occur in the clinical setting. Devices with short double prongs had the lowest resistance to flow. These results have implications in the selection of the optimal device/s for clinical application and for future comparisons in randomised trials of NCPAP in neonates.

Keywords: positive pressure respiration; airway resistance

Abbreviations: CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; NCPAP, nasal continuous positive airway pressure


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Fantoms
Ben Stenson
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2002 87: F2. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Colnaghi, M, Matassa, P G, Fumagalli, M, Messina, D, Mosca, F (2008). Pharyngeal pressure value using two continuous positive airway pressure devices. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 93: F302-F304 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • De Paoli, A G, Lau, R, Davis, P G, Morley, C J (2005). Pharyngeal pressure in preterm infants receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 90: F79-F81 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

Latest from ADC

 

ADC is co-owned by the RCPCH and is the official journal of the European Academy of Paediatrics

BMJ Careers - Latest Paediatrics and Paediatric Surgery Jobs

Paediatrics and Paediatric Surgery Jobs