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

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    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]