Limits...
Testing limits to airflow perturbation device (APD) measurements.

Lopresti ER, Johnson AT, Koh FC, Scott WH, Jamshidi S, Silverman NK - Biomed Eng Online (2008)

Bottom Line: This was not statistically significant.Larger leaks given by 4.8 and 6.4 mm tubes reduced measurements significantly (3.4 and 3.0 cm cmH2O.sec/L, respectively).Although breathing through a 52 cm length of flexible ventilator tubing reduced the APD measurement from 4.0 cm H2O.sec/L for the control to 3.6 cm H2O.sec/L for the tube, the difference was not statistically significant.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Fischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA. erikalopresti@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Background: The Airflow Perturbation Device (APD) is a lightweight, portable device that can be used to measure total respiratory resistance as well as inhalation and exhalation resistances. There is a need to determine limits to the accuracy of APD measurements for different conditions likely to occur: leaks around the mouthpiece, use of an oronasal mask, and the addition of resistance in the respiratory system. Also, there is a need for resistance measurements in patients who are ventilated.

Method: Ten subjects between the ages of 18 and 35 were tested for each station in the experiment. The first station involved testing the effects of leaks of known sizes on APD measurements. The second station tested the use of an oronasal mask used in conjunction with the APD during nose and mouth breathing. The third station tested the effects of two different resistances added in series with the APD mouthpiece. The fourth station tested the usage of a flexible ventilator tube in conjunction with the APD.

Results: All leaks reduced APD resistance measurement values. Leaks represented by two 3.2 mm diameter tubes reduced measured resistance by about 10% (4.2 cmH2O.sec/L for control and 3.9 cm H2O.sec/L for the leak). This was not statistically significant. Larger leaks given by 4.8 and 6.4 mm tubes reduced measurements significantly (3.4 and 3.0 cm cmH2O.sec/L, respectively). Mouth resistance measured with a cardboard mouthpiece gave an APD measurement of 4.2 cm H2O.sec/L and mouth resistance measured with an oronasal mask was 4.5 cm H2O.sec/L; the two were not significantly different. Nose resistance measured with the oronasal mask was 7.6 cm H2O.sec/L. Adding airflow resistances of 1.12 and 2.10 cm H2O.sec/L to the breathing circuit between the mouth and APD yielded respiratory resistance values higher than the control by 0.7 and 2.0 cm H2O.sec/L. Although breathing through a 52 cm length of flexible ventilator tubing reduced the APD measurement from 4.0 cm H2O.sec/L for the control to 3.6 cm H2O.sec/L for the tube, the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: The APD can be adapted for use in ventilated, unconscious, and uncooperative patients with use of a ventilator tube and an oronasal mask without significantly affecting measurements. Adding a resistance in series with the APD mouthpiece has an additive effect on resistance measurements, and can be used for qualitative calibration. A leak size of at least the equivalent of two 3.2 mm diameter tubes can be tolerated without significantly affecting APD measurements.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Diagram of the additional resistance used with the APD. This resistance was inserted between the subject’s mouth and the APD pneumotach. Constructing the resistance from capillary tubes gave laminar flow and nearly constant resistance with flow rate
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2600779&req=5

Figure 4: Diagram of the additional resistance used with the APD. This resistance was inserted between the subject’s mouth and the APD pneumotach. Constructing the resistance from capillary tubes gave laminar flow and nearly constant resistance with flow rate

Mentions: At Station 3, subjects used three different mouthpieces for a total of three measurements. The first measurement was made using the control mouthpiece. The following two measurements were made using mouthpieces with an added resistance. Resistances were made using plastic tubing the same size as the control mouthpiece (Figure 4). The tubing was then filled with smaller capillary tubes with low Reynolds numbers to create additional (nearly constant) resistance over the calm breathing flow range of 0–0.5 L/sec. Control mouthpieces were taped to either end of the resistive mouthpiece. Two different sized capillary tubes were used to make two different resistive mouthpieces. The smaller capillary tubes had an inner diameter of 1.1–1.2 mm and were used to make the larger added resistance with a measured value of 2.10 cmH2O·sec/L. The larger capillary tubes used to make the smaller resistance had a 3 mm inner diameter and a measured resistance value of 1.12 cmH2O·sec/L. Both sizes were approximately 75 mm long.


Testing limits to airflow perturbation device (APD) measurements.

Lopresti ER, Johnson AT, Koh FC, Scott WH, Jamshidi S, Silverman NK - Biomed Eng Online (2008)

Diagram of the additional resistance used with the APD. This resistance was inserted between the subject’s mouth and the APD pneumotach. Constructing the resistance from capillary tubes gave laminar flow and nearly constant resistance with flow rate
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2600779&req=5

Figure 4: Diagram of the additional resistance used with the APD. This resistance was inserted between the subject’s mouth and the APD pneumotach. Constructing the resistance from capillary tubes gave laminar flow and nearly constant resistance with flow rate
Mentions: At Station 3, subjects used three different mouthpieces for a total of three measurements. The first measurement was made using the control mouthpiece. The following two measurements were made using mouthpieces with an added resistance. Resistances were made using plastic tubing the same size as the control mouthpiece (Figure 4). The tubing was then filled with smaller capillary tubes with low Reynolds numbers to create additional (nearly constant) resistance over the calm breathing flow range of 0–0.5 L/sec. Control mouthpieces were taped to either end of the resistive mouthpiece. Two different sized capillary tubes were used to make two different resistive mouthpieces. The smaller capillary tubes had an inner diameter of 1.1–1.2 mm and were used to make the larger added resistance with a measured value of 2.10 cmH2O·sec/L. The larger capillary tubes used to make the smaller resistance had a 3 mm inner diameter and a measured resistance value of 1.12 cmH2O·sec/L. Both sizes were approximately 75 mm long.

Bottom Line: This was not statistically significant.Larger leaks given by 4.8 and 6.4 mm tubes reduced measurements significantly (3.4 and 3.0 cm cmH2O.sec/L, respectively).Although breathing through a 52 cm length of flexible ventilator tubing reduced the APD measurement from 4.0 cm H2O.sec/L for the control to 3.6 cm H2O.sec/L for the tube, the difference was not statistically significant.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Fischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA. erikalopresti@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Background: The Airflow Perturbation Device (APD) is a lightweight, portable device that can be used to measure total respiratory resistance as well as inhalation and exhalation resistances. There is a need to determine limits to the accuracy of APD measurements for different conditions likely to occur: leaks around the mouthpiece, use of an oronasal mask, and the addition of resistance in the respiratory system. Also, there is a need for resistance measurements in patients who are ventilated.

Method: Ten subjects between the ages of 18 and 35 were tested for each station in the experiment. The first station involved testing the effects of leaks of known sizes on APD measurements. The second station tested the use of an oronasal mask used in conjunction with the APD during nose and mouth breathing. The third station tested the effects of two different resistances added in series with the APD mouthpiece. The fourth station tested the usage of a flexible ventilator tube in conjunction with the APD.

Results: All leaks reduced APD resistance measurement values. Leaks represented by two 3.2 mm diameter tubes reduced measured resistance by about 10% (4.2 cmH2O.sec/L for control and 3.9 cm H2O.sec/L for the leak). This was not statistically significant. Larger leaks given by 4.8 and 6.4 mm tubes reduced measurements significantly (3.4 and 3.0 cm cmH2O.sec/L, respectively). Mouth resistance measured with a cardboard mouthpiece gave an APD measurement of 4.2 cm H2O.sec/L and mouth resistance measured with an oronasal mask was 4.5 cm H2O.sec/L; the two were not significantly different. Nose resistance measured with the oronasal mask was 7.6 cm H2O.sec/L. Adding airflow resistances of 1.12 and 2.10 cm H2O.sec/L to the breathing circuit between the mouth and APD yielded respiratory resistance values higher than the control by 0.7 and 2.0 cm H2O.sec/L. Although breathing through a 52 cm length of flexible ventilator tubing reduced the APD measurement from 4.0 cm H2O.sec/L for the control to 3.6 cm H2O.sec/L for the tube, the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: The APD can be adapted for use in ventilated, unconscious, and uncooperative patients with use of a ventilator tube and an oronasal mask without significantly affecting measurements. Adding a resistance in series with the APD mouthpiece has an additive effect on resistance measurements, and can be used for qualitative calibration. A leak size of at least the equivalent of two 3.2 mm diameter tubes can be tolerated without significantly affecting APD measurements.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus