Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

A laboratory comparison of four positive pressure ventilators used in the home

IE Smith, JM Shneerson
European Respiratory Journal 1996 9: 2410-2415; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.96.09112410
IE Smith
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JM Shneerson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Four brands of ventilator used for noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in the home were assessed to determine their performance on a patient simulator. We tested the tidal volume (VT) preset Companion 2801 (Puritan Bennett), minute volume preset Monnal D (Taema), and two pressure preset ventilators, the Nippy (Friday Medical) and the Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) (Respironics). A patient simulator was employed to investigate the relationships between VT, peak airway pressure (PAP) and mean airway pressure (MAP), the responses to an additional leak in the circuit and patient effort of a variable duration, which was modelled using a negative pressure pump. For equivalent VTs, >300 mL, the Monnal D and Nippy generated a PAP up to 100% greater than the Companion 2801 and BiPAP. When an additional leak was introduced to the circuit, the VT of the Companion 2801 and Monnal D fell by >50%, while the Nippy and the BiPAP responded by increasing flow and maintained VT close to the level achieved with no leak. When the ventilators were triggered by a simulated patient effort of 0.25 s duration with a frequency 33% greater than that of the ventilator, the minute volume increased by 41% for the Companion 2801, by 18% for the Monnal D (no change expected), and by 17% for the Nippy (less than expected), and fell by 7% for the BiPAP due to irregular triggering. When patient effort was prolonged to 1.5 s, a similar length to the inspiratory time of the ventilators, there was no further change in the minute volume of the Companion 2801 and Monnal D, while that of the Nippy and of the BiPAP increased by 38 and 71%, respectively, compared to baseline. These results show that distinct brands of ventilator respond to changes in the patient and patient circuit in different ways, which are not always predictable from a simple description of their operating principles. This should be borne in mind when choosing a positive pressure ventilator for noninvasive ventilation.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 9 Issue 11 Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A laboratory comparison of four positive pressure ventilators used in the home
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A laboratory comparison of four positive pressure ventilators used in the home
IE Smith, JM Shneerson
European Respiratory Journal Nov 1996, 9 (11) 2410-2415; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.96.09112410

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
A laboratory comparison of four positive pressure ventilators used in the home
IE Smith, JM Shneerson
European Respiratory Journal Nov 1996, 9 (11) 2410-2415; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.96.09112410
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Ambulatory management of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax
  • Systematic assessment of respiratory health in illness susceptible athletes
  • Identifying early PAH biomarkers in systemic sclerosis
Show more Original Articles

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society