Comparing the performance characteristics of different positive expiratory pressure devices
Franks, Lisa J., Walsh, James R., Hall, Kathleen, Jacuinde, Guillermo, Yerkovich, Stephanie and Morris, Norman R.. (2019). Comparing the performance characteristics of different positive expiratory pressure devices. Respiratory Care. 64(4), pp. 434-444. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.06410
|Authors||Franks, Lisa J., Walsh, James R., Hall, Kathleen, Jacuinde, Guillermo, Yerkovich, Stephanie and Morris, Norman R.|
BACKGROUND: Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) devices are widely used in clinical settings, yet the performance characteristics of these devices remain relatively unknown. This study compared the performance characteristics of 6 airway clearance devices by varying resistance and flow.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: Performance characteristics of the devices differed across flows and resistance settings (device × flow/resistance interaction; P < .001). At a fixed resistance, increasing flows increased mean PEP produced by the Acapella Choice, Acapella DH, Aerobika, and Pari PEP S. Increasing flow resulted in minimal change in mean PEP produced by the Flutter and Acapella DM. Increasing flow increased peak PEP and amplitude PEP produced by all devices except the Acapella DH and Acapella Choice. Increasing flow maintained or increased oscillation frequency for all devices except the Flutter. At a fixed flow, increasing resistance increased mean PEP produced by all devices except the Acapella Choice. 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. Increasing resistance either maintained or increased oscillation frequency for all devices. Amplitude PEP was either maintained or increased during oscillations when increasing resistance for all devices except the Flutter.
CONCLUSIONS: PEP devices produced small but statistically significant variations in performance characteristics across a range of flows and resistance settings. There appear to be flow-dependent and non–flow-dependent devices. Varying flow or resistance typically maintained or increased the production of mean, peak, and amplitude PEP and oscillation frequency.
|Keywords||airway clearance; airway clearance techniques; positive expiratory pressure device; PEP; physiotherapy|
|Journal citation||64 (4), pp. 434-444|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI)||https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.06410|
|Research or scholarly||Research|
All rights reserved
File Access Level
|Online||02 Apr 2019|
|Publication process dates|
|Deposited||21 May 2021|
2views this month
0downloads this month