Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • 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
    • 2023 Call for Abstracts
    • 2022 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
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • 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
    • 2023 Call for Abstracts
    • 2022 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
EditorialEditorials

Bubble CPAP: Not All Bubbling Is Good Bubbling

Christopher W Mastropietro
Respiratory Care November 2013, 58 (11) 1990-1991; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.02872
Christopher W Mastropietro
Division of Critical Care Department of Pediatrics Riley Hospital for Children Indiana University School of Medicine Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Since its introduction over 30 years ago,1 bubble CPAP has become an important part of the management of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Similar to “ventilator-derived” or “machine-derived” CPAP devices, bubble CPAP devices apply pressure to the neonatal respiratory system via nasal prongs placed into the infant's nostrils, forming a tight seal to minimize leak. On the other hand, bubble CPAP devices are much simpler than ventilator-derived CPAP, often consisting only of humidified bias flow being delivered into the inspiratory limb, and the CPAP level set based on the distance the expiratory limb of the circuit is submerged into a water seal chamber. The simplicity of this system makes it attractive to many centers, especially resource-limited neonatal units in developing countries.2

Bubble CPAP also differs from ventilator-derived CPAP mechanistically. The mean pressure applied to the infant's airway in bubble CPAP is not constant, as it is in ventilator-derived systems, but, rather, resonant, with the airway pressure actually fluctuating approximately 4 cm H2O around the mean.3 This resonance results from the bubbling that occurs when the bias flow reaches the water seal chamber. For example, in a bubble CPAP system in which the expiratory limb of the circuit is submerged 5 cm H2O, the pressure applied to the airway may actually be “oscillating” between 3 and 7 cm H2O. These pressure swings are caused by pressure amplitudes created by the bubbling in the water seal chamber that reflects back through the expiratory limb of the circuit. Several studies have suggested this “noise” contributes to alveolar recruitment and maintenance of airway patency, and is thus likely responsible for some of the beneficial effects of bubble CPAP on gas exchange, lung volumes, and outcomes that have been reported in infants with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome.4–6 Further, this effect seems to be most pronounced early after birth, when compliance is low and the oscillating pressure amplitudes are minimally dampened as they are transmitted through the respiratory system.3

In this month's issue of Respiratory Care, Youngquist and colleagues report an elegant set of experiments evaluating the effect of a different kind of “noise” on the pressure delivered to the airway in infants receiving bubble CPAP.7 For most infants receiving positive-pressure ventilation, whether from traditional mechanical ventilators or bubble CPAP devices, condensate forms in the expiratory limb of the circuit as warm humidified gas is exposed to room temperature tubing. As the authors note, if there is a low point in the expiratory tubing, a considerable amount of condensate will form and “bounce/bubble” around in the tubing as more gas flows past. In traditional mechanical ventilators, this “bubbling” can lead to excessive activation of the flow trigger and lead to hyperventilation.8

To my knowledge, prior to these experiments by Youngquist et al there were no studies examining the effect of this condensate on bubble CPAP devices. Using a neonatal test lung configured to simulate the physiology of an extremely-low-birth-weight infant and a sophisticated artificial nasopharynx model produced to simulate the high resistance of this portion of the neonatal respiratory system, the authors measured the rate of fluid accumulation with the bubble CPAP system and the airway pressures generated at different fluid accumulation levels in the expiratory limb of the circuit. At CPAP of 5 cm H2O and flow of 8 L/min they report a steady rate of condensate accumulation of 3.8 mL/h. Airway pressures did not seem to be affected by < 5 mL of fluid accumulation, but as condensate volumes increased to 10 mL, 15 mL, and 20 mL, there was a 1.5-, 2-, and 3-fold increase in the amplitudes of the pressure oscillations measured at the airway. Specifically, the amplitudes increased from approximately 3 cm H2O at 0–5 mL of fluid accumulation to as high as 8–10 cm H2O at 20 mL of fluid accumulation. In practical terms, an infant receiving bubble CPAP set at 8 cm H2O could be receiving pressure oscillations fluctuating between 3 and 13 cm H2O at the airway, and in infants with very poor lung compliance, much of this pressure will be transmitted to the alveoli. While the small amount of “noise” generated by the bubbles in the water seal chamber could be helpful, the larger pressure swings generated by this unintended fluid accumulation has more potential to be harmful.

While no artificial model will simulate all of the subtleties and nuances of a living infant with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, the novel model created by these authors is impressive and accounts for most if not all of the important physiologic conditions present in these patients. Their results should therefore be considered valid, and neonatologists who regularly use bubble CPAP should be more aware of this problem. As the authors note, many bubble CPAP devices do not have the degree of safety features and alarms present in ventilator-derived CPAP devices. The authors conclude their set of experiments by demonstrating that the addition of a pressure-relief valve in the bubble CPAP circuit can attenuate the large pressure swings caused by the accumulated condensate. These devices, however, should not take the place of strict surveillance of the bubble CPAP circuit. Simple hourly observation and, if necessary, emptying of the condensate from the expiratory limb of the circuit by the bedside nurse or respiratory therapist should effectively limit this unwanted additional “noise.”

Youngquist and colleagues should be commended for their sophisticated approach to confirming what many other neonatologists and pediatric intensivists have suspected but never put in the effort to formally study. I hope that their work not only increases awareness of this one potential problem but also inspires other academic clinicians to look for other types of “noise” in their own ICUs and put in the efforts to determine its effect on their fragile patients.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Christopher W Mastropietro MD, Division of Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Riley Hospital for Children, 705 Riley Hospital Drive, RI 2117, Indianapolis IN 46202. E-mail: cmastrop{at}iupui.edu.
  • The author has disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • See the Original Study on Page 1840

  • Copyright © 2013 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Wung JT,
    2. Driscoll JM Jr.,
    3. Epstein RA,
    4. Hyman AI
    . A new device for CPAP by nasal route. Crit Care Med 1975;3(2):76-78.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Koyamaibole L,
    2. Kado J,
    3. Qovu JD,
    4. Colquhoun S,
    5. Duke T
    . An evaluation of bubble-CPAP in a neonatal unit in a developing country: effective respiratory support that can be applied by nurses. J Trop Pediatr 2006;52(4):249-253.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Pillow JJ,
    2. Hillman N,
    3. Moss TJ,
    4. Polglase G,
    5. Bold G,
    6. Beaumont C,
    7. et al
    . Bubble continuous positive airway pressure enhances lung volume and gas exchange in preterm lambs. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;176(1):63-69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Narendran V,
    2. Donovan EF,
    3. Hoath SB,
    4. Akinbi HT,
    5. Steichen JJ,
    6. Jobe AH
    . Early bubble CPAP and outcomes in ELBW preterm infants. J Perinatol 2003;23(3):195-199.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Nowadzky T,
    2. Pantoja A,
    3. Britton JR
    . Bubble continuous positive airway pressure, a potentially better practice, reduces the use of mechanical ventilation among very low birth weight infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 2009;123(6):1534-1540.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Gupta S,
    2. Sinha SK,
    3. Tin W,
    4. Donn SM
    . A randomized controlled trial of post-extubation bubble continuous positive airway pressure versus Infant Flow Driver continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. J Pediatr 2009;154(5):645-650.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Youngquist TM,
    2. Richardson CP,
    3. DiBlasi RM
    . Effects of condensate in the exhalation limb of neonatal circuits on airway pressure during bubble CPAP. Respir Care 2013;58(11):1840-1846.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Sassoon CSH
    . Triggering of the ventilator in patient-ventilator interactions. Respir Care 2011;56(1):39-48; discussion: 48-51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 58 (11)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 58, Issue 11
1 Nov 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Monthly Podcast

 

Print
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.
Bubble CPAP: Not All Bubbling Is Good Bubbling
(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
Bubble CPAP: Not All Bubbling Is Good Bubbling
Christopher W Mastropietro
Respiratory Care Nov 2013, 58 (11) 1990-1991; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.02872

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Bubble CPAP: Not All Bubbling Is Good Bubbling
Christopher W Mastropietro
Respiratory Care Nov 2013, 58 (11) 1990-1991; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.02872
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
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board

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