Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Contributions

Physiological Responses to Positive Expiratory Pressure Breathing: A Comparison of the PEP Bottle and the PEP Mask

Maria Sehlin, Fredrik Öhberg, Göran Johansson and Ola Winsö
Respiratory Care August 2007, 52 (8) 1000-1005;
Maria Sehlin
Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Fredrik Öhberg
Department of Radiation Sciences
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Göran Johansson
Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ola Winsö
Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the intensive care unit we have observed that patients have different adherence to 2 commonly used positive-expiratory-pressure (PEP) therapy devices: the PEP bottle and the PEP mask. The reason for this difference is not clear.

METHODS: In a randomized prospective study, we made continuous recordings of airway pressure and airflow, with 20 healthy volunteers, with the PEP bottle and the PEP mask. The measurement sequence consisted of 3 sessions of 10 breaths with the PEP bottle and the PEP mask, in a randomized crossover design. A rest period of 15 min separated the PEP bottle and PEP mask measurements.

RESULTS: With the PEP bottle the expiratory phase began with a zero-flow period of 0.39 s, during which airway pressure rose 11.9 cm H2O. With the PEP bottle the mean expiratory pressure was 11.7 cm H2O, and end-expiratory pressure was 9.5 cm H2O. With the PEP mask the initial expiratory zero-flow period was almost nonexistent (0.04 s) and without any change in airway pressure. With the PEP mask the shape of the expiratory pressure curve was different; mean expiratory pressure was 8.6 cm H2O, and end-expiratory pressure was zero. With the PEP bottle the inspiration also began with a zero-flow period of 0.43 s, during which airway pressure decreased 9.6 cm H2O from the end-expiratory airway pressure. With the PEP mask the initial inspiratory zero-flow period was only 0.01 s and there was no concomitant change in airway pressure.

CONCLUSIONS: The PEP bottle and the PEP mask showed major differences in the relationship between airflow and airway pressure. These findings might explain the observed differences in patient adherence to these therapies.

  • positive expiratory pressure
  • PEP
  • airflow
  • airway pressure
  • Borg scale
  • chest physiotherapy
  • flow resistor
  • threshold resistor

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Maria Sehlin RPT MSc, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy, Operationscentrum, Umeå University Hospital, S-901 85 Umeå, Sweden. E-mail: maria.sehlin{at}vll.se.
  • This research was supported by grants from the Swedish Association of Registered Physiotherapists. The authors report no other conflicts of interest.

  • Maria Sehlin RPT MSc presented a version of this paper at the meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, held July 2, 2005, in Reykjavik, Iceland, and at the Swedish Association of Registered Physiotherapists Congress, held October 28, 2005, in Stockholm, Sweden.

  • Copyright © 2007 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 52 (8)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 52, Issue 8
1 Aug 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

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.
Physiological Responses to Positive Expiratory Pressure Breathing: A Comparison of the PEP Bottle and the PEP Mask
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Physiological Responses to Positive Expiratory Pressure Breathing: A Comparison of the PEP Bottle and the PEP Mask
Maria Sehlin, Fredrik Öhberg, Göran Johansson, Ola Winsö
Respiratory Care Aug 2007, 52 (8) 1000-1005;

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Physiological Responses to Positive Expiratory Pressure Breathing: A Comparison of the PEP Bottle and the PEP Mask
Maria Sehlin, Fredrik Öhberg, Göran Johansson, Ola Winsö
Respiratory Care Aug 2007, 52 (8) 1000-1005;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • positive expiratory pressure
  • PEP
  • airflow
  • Airway pressure
  • Borg scale
  • chest physiotherapy
  • flow resistor
  • threshold resistor

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire