S A N T È • LÖW E N S T E I N S L E E P T H E R A PY D E V I C E S
Appendix 8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE SLEEP MEDICINE
Comparative assessment of several automatic CPAP devices ’ responses: a bench test study
Valentina Isetta 1,2 , Daniel Navajas 1,2,3 , Josep M. Montserrat 2,4,5 and Ramon Farré 1,2,5
Affiliations : 1 Unitat de Biofísica i Bioenginyeria, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 2 CIBERES, Madrid, Spain. 3 Institute for Bioengineering of Catalonia (IBEC), Barcelona, Spain. 4 Sleep Lab, Pneumology Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain. 5 IDIBAPS (Institut d ’ investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer), Barcelona, Spain. Correspondence : Ramon Farré, Unitat de Biofísica i Bioenginyeria, Facultat de Medicina – Universitat de Barcelona, Casanova 143, 08036, Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: rfarre@ub.edu ABSTRACT Automatic continuous positive airway pressure (APAP) devices adjust the delivered pressure based on the breathing patterns of the patient and, accordingly, they may be more suitable for patients who have a variety of pressure demands during sleep based on factors such as body posture, sleep stage or variability between nights. Devices from different manufacturers incorporate distinct algorithms and may therefore respond differently when subjected to the same disturbed breathing pattern. Our objective was to assess the response of several currently available APAP devices in a bench test. A computer-controlled model mimicking the breathing pattern of a patient with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) was connected to different APAP devices for 2-h tests during which flow and pressure readings were recorded. Devices tested were AirSense 10 (ResMed), Dreamstar (Sefam), Icon (Fisher & Paykel), Resmart (BMC), Somnobalance (Weinmann), System One (Respironics) and XT-Auto (Apex). Each device was tested twice. The response of each device was considerably different. Whereas some devices were able to normalise breathing, in some cases exceeding the required pressure, other devices did not eliminate disturbed breathing events (mainly prolonged flow limitation). Mean and maximum pressures ranged 7.3 – 14.6 cmH 2 O and 10.4 – 17.9 cmH 2 O, respectively, and the time to reach maximum pressure varied from 4.4 to 96.0 min. Each APAP device uses a proprietary algorithm and, therefore, the response to a bench simulation of OSA varied significantly. This must be taken into account for nasal pressure treatment of OSA patients and when comparing results from clinical trials.
@ERSpublications There are considerable differences between APAP devices subjected to simulated OSA http://ow.ly/QtmxI
Copyright ©ERS 2015. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. Received: June 05 2015 | Accepted after revision: July 26 2015 Support statement: This work was carried out within the framework of a ResMed – University of Barcelona contract aimed at bench testing automatic continuous positive airway pressure devices. ResMed provided financial support to carry out the study but did not intervene in the design or performance of the tests, or in the data analysis. ResMed also funded the assistance of a medical writer in preparing the manuscript. Funding information for this article has been deposited with FundRef. Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at openres.ersjournals.com
ERJ Open Res 2015; 1: 00031 ‐ 2015 | DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00031-2015
1
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter