![]() ![]() Both devices produced similar pressure waveforms at the medium flows. ![]() However, the differences were relatively small and may not be clinically important. There were statistically significant differences between the devices for mean pressure, pressure amplitude, and frequency, for all experimental conditions. Data were analyzed by 2-way repeated measures analysis of variance, and differences were considered significant when p was < 0.05. The devices were adjusted to give low, medium, and high mean expiratory pressure (Flutter angle at 0, 20, and 40 degrees Acapella by dial setting). The pressure waveform for 1 second was also graphically displayed and recorded. Values for frequency, peak, trough, and mean pressure were recorded automatically every 3 seconds at flows of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 L/min. We measured oscillatory amplitude, PEP, and frequency. We hypothesized that the Acapella and Flutter would produce similar mean PEP, oscillatory pressure amplitude, and frequency over a clinically relevant range of flows. The Acapella comes in 2 models: one for patients with expiratory flow > or = 15 L/min and one for < or = 15 L/min. A new device, the Acapella, uses a counterweighted plug and magnet to create air flow oscillation. ![]() In the Flutter a steel ball vibrates inside a cone, causing air flow vibration. Oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (PEP) with the Flutter device facilitates secretion removal. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |