Comparisons of Peak Cough Flow and Insufflation Volume Delivery and Accuracy on Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices in a Pediatric Lung Model

Background: Long-term mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) has been widely used to treat pediatric patients with ineffective cough from various conditions, such as neuromuscular diseases and chronic respiratory failure receiving mechanical ventilation. A previous bench study found the performance of MI-E devices extremely varied from manufacturers and even models of the same manufacturer and recommended individualized MI-E settings based on the specific machine utilized. We conducted a bench study to compare peak cough flow and insufflation volume delivery through two MI-E devices using a breathing simulator. Methods: A breathing simulator was set to simulate a pediatric patient (resistance of 50 L/min/s and compliance of 10 mL/cm H2O) with spontaneous breathing efforts, connecting with two MI-E devices—CoughAssist T70 and Synclara. A flow analyzer Citrex H5 was connected between the MI-E devices and ASL 5000 to measure cough peak flow (CPF) and insufflation volume (Vi). Accuracies of the MI-E devices were calculated for CPF and Vi values. 10 consecutive CPF and Vi values measured by ASL 5000, MI-E devices, and the flow analyzer were recorded and analyzed. Results: The CPF values measured by CoughAssist T70 and Synclara were 97 [91-105] and 144 [121-157] L/min, respectively. The Vi values measured by CoughAssist T70 and Synclara were 344 [303-351] and 174 [165-187] mL, respectively. The median accuracy (%) of CPF for Cough Assist T70 and Synclara were -31 and -5%, respectively. The median accuracy (%) of Vi for CoughAssist T70 and Synclara were -38 and -56%, respectively. There were no significant differences on CPF and Vi delivery to the simulator (P = .21 and P = .98, respectively). Conclusions: Although the accuracy of parameters varied by MI-E devices, there were no significant differences on CPF and Vi delivery. Future research may be needed to evaluate movement of secretion in pediatric population among different MI-E devices.Accuracy of Peak Cough Flow and Insufflation Volume Measurement on Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Respiratory Care
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.20244113403
Primary Topic
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparisons of Peak Cough Flow and Insufflation Volume Delivery and Accuracy on Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices in a Pediatric Lung Model

Angela Saunders, Anita Arnsperger, Caleb Arnold, Reggie Sawyer et al.
Respiratory Care
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
article

Comparisons of Peak Cough Flow and Insufflation Volume Delivery and Accuracy on Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices in a Pediatric Lung Model

Angela Saunders, Anita Arnsperger, Caleb Arnold, Reggie Sawyer, Roger Gibson, Ping-Hui Liu
article en

Abstract

Background: Long-term mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) has been widely used to treat pediatric patients with ineffective cough from various conditions, such as neuromuscular diseases and chronic respiratory failure receiving mechanical ventilation. A previous bench study found the performance of MI-E devices extremely varied from manufacturers and even models of the same manufacturer and recommended individualized MI-E settings based on the specific machine utilized. We conducted a bench study to compare peak cough flow and insufflation volume delivery through two MI-E devices using a breathing simulator. Methods: A breathing simulator was set to simulate a pediatric patient (resistance of 50 L/min/s and compliance of 10 mL/cm H2O) with spontaneous breathing efforts, connecting with two MI-E devices—CoughAssist T70 and Synclara. A flow analyzer Citrex H5 was connected between the MI-E devices and ASL 5000 to measure cough peak flow (CPF) and insufflation volume (Vi). Accuracies of the MI-E devices were calculated for CPF and Vi values. 10 consecutive CPF and Vi values measured by ASL 5000, MI-E devices, and the flow analyzer were recorded and analyzed. Results: The CPF values measured by CoughAssist T70 and Synclara were 97 [91-105] and 144 [121-157] L/min, respectively. The Vi values measured by CoughAssist T70 and Synclara were 344 [303-351] and 174 [165-187] mL, respectively. The median accuracy (%) of CPF for Cough Assist T70 and Synclara were -31 and -5%, respectively. The median accuracy (%) of Vi for CoughAssist T70 and Synclara were -38 and -56%, respectively. There were no significant differences on CPF and Vi delivery to the simulator (P = .21 and P = .98, respectively). Conclusions: Although the accuracy of parameters varied by MI-E devices, there were no significant differences on CPF and Vi delivery. Future research may be needed to evaluate movement of secretion in pediatric population among different MI-E devices.Accuracy of Peak Cough Flow and Insufflation Volume Measurement on Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices

Respiratory CareVol. 69(10_suppl)
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 41%
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.