Desmond J Bennett1, Ryan W Carroll2, Robert M Kacmarek3,4. 1. Department of Respiratory Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Respiratory Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. rkacmarek@mgh.harvard.edu. 4. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respiratory compromise is a leading contributor to global neonatal death. CPAP is a method of treatment that helps maintain lung volume during expiration, promotes comfortable breathing, and improves oxygenation. Bubble CPAP is an effective alternative to standard CPAP. We sought to determine the reliability and functionality of a low-cost bubble CPAP device designed for low-resource settings. METHODS: The low-cost bubble CPAP device was compared to a commercially available bubble CPAP system. The devices were connected to a lung simulator that simulated neonates of 4 different weights with compromised respiratory mechanics (∼1, ∼3, ∼5, and ∼10 kg). The devices' abilities to establish and maintain pressure and flow under normal conditions as well as under conditions of leak were compared. Multiple combinations of pressure levels (5, 8, and 10 cm H2O) and flow levels (3, 6, and 10 L/min) were tested. The endurance of both devices was also tested by running the systems continuously for 8 h and measuring the changes in pressure and flow. RESULTS: Both devices performed equivalently during the no-leak and leak trials. While our testing revealed individual differences that were statistically significant and clinically important (>10% difference) within specific CPAP and flow-level settings, no overall comparisons of CPAP or flow were both statistically significant and clinically important. Each device delivered pressures similar to the desired pressures, although the flows delivered by both machines were lower than the set flows in most trials. During the endurance trials, the low-cost device was marginally better at maintaining pressure, while the commercially available device was better at maintaining flow. CONCLUSIONS: The low-cost bubble CPAP device evaluated in this study is comparable to a bubble CPAP system used in developed settings. Extensive clinical trials, however, are necessary to confirm its effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: Respiratory compromise is a leading contributor to global neonatal death. CPAP is a method of treatment that helps maintain lung volume during expiration, promotes comfortable breathing, and improves oxygenation. Bubble CPAP is an effective alternative to standard CPAP. We sought to determine the reliability and functionality of a low-cost bubble CPAP device designed for low-resource settings. METHODS: The low-cost bubble CPAP device was compared to a commercially available bubble CPAP system. The devices were connected to a lung simulator that simulated neonates of 4 different weights with compromised respiratory mechanics (∼1, ∼3, ∼5, and ∼10 kg). The devices' abilities to establish and maintain pressure and flow under normal conditions as well as under conditions of leak were compared. Multiple combinations of pressure levels (5, 8, and 10 cm H2O) and flow levels (3, 6, and 10 L/min) were tested. The endurance of both devices was also tested by running the systems continuously for 8 h and measuring the changes in pressure and flow. RESULTS: Both devices performed equivalently during the no-leak and leak trials. While our testing revealed individual differences that were statistically significant and clinically important (>10% difference) within specific CPAP and flow-level settings, no overall comparisons of CPAP or flow were both statistically significant and clinically important. Each device delivered pressures similar to the desired pressures, although the flows delivered by both machines were lower than the set flows in most trials. During the endurance trials, the low-cost device was marginally better at maintaining pressure, while the commercially available device was better at maintaining flow. CONCLUSIONS: The low-cost bubble CPAP device evaluated in this study is comparable to a bubble CPAP system used in developed settings. Extensive clinical trials, however, are necessary to confirm its effectiveness.
Authors: Ramon Farré; Gerard Trias; Gorka Solana; Gemma Ginovart; David Gozal; Daniel Navajas Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Pete Culmer; W Davis Birch; I Waters; A Keeling; C Osnes; D Jones; G de Boer; R Hetherington; S Ashton; M Latham; T Beacon; T Royston; R Miller; A Littlejohns; J Parmar; Tom Lawton; S Murdoch; D Brettle; R Musasizi; G Nampiina; E Namulema; N Kapur Journal: Front Med Technol Date: 2021-08-24