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 Research

Bench Comparative Assessment of Mechanically Assisted Cough Devices

Pamela Frigerio, Federico Longhini, Maurizio Sommariva, Enrica G Stagni, Francesco Curto, Tiziana Redaelli, Marco Ciboldi, Anita K Simonds and Paolo Navalesi
Respiratory Care July 2015, 60 (7) 975-982; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.03809
Pamela Frigerio
Spinal Cord Unit
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Federico Longhini
Department of Translational Medicine, Eastern Piedmont University A. Avogadro, Novara, Italy, and the Division of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Sant'Andrea Hospita (ASL VC), Vercelli, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maurizio Sommariva
Neurocritical Care Unit, Department of Neuroscience
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Enrica G Stagni
Spinal Cord Unit
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Francesco Curto
Neurocritical Care Unit, Department of Neuroscience
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tiziana Redaelli
Spinal Cord Unit
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marco Ciboldi
Department of Clinical Engineering, Niguarda Cà Granda Hospital, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anita K Simonds
National Heart & Lung Institute Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paolo Navalesi
Department of Translational Medicine, Eastern Piedmont University A. Avogadro, Novara, Italy, and the Division of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Sant'Andrea Hospita (ASL VC), Vercelli, Italy.
CRRF Mons Luigi Novarese, Moncrivello, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    Discrepancy between preset and actual airway pressures. A: inspiratory and expiratory airway pressure (Paw) medians of 5 respiratory cycles obtained with each individual mechanically assisted cough device (white symbols). The median values of the overall 15 measurements (black symbols) are also displayed for each type of device. Dashed lines indicate the ±4% tolerance limits according to the European Commission regulation for mechanical ventilators. B: inspiratory (TI) and expiratory (TE) time medians are shown for each device.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    Mechanically assisted cough device performance with varying mechanical properties and air leaks. A: Inspiratory airway pressure (Paw), tidal volume (VT), and time to reach 90% of preset inspiratory Paw (T90I) in different simulated conditions. B: Expiratory Paw, peak expiratory flow (PEF), and time to reach 90% of preset expiratory Paw (T90E) in different simulated conditions. Dashed lines indicate preset inspiratory (A) and expiratory (B) Paw. * P < .05, compliance of 40 mL/cm H2O and resistance of 10 cm H2O/L/s with air leaks (C40R10L) vs compliance of 40 mL/cm H2O and resistance of 10 cm H2O/L/s without air leaks (C40R10). † P < .05, compliance of 60 mL/cm H2O and resistance of 20 cm H2O/L/s with air leaks (C60R20L) vs compliance of 60 mL/cm H2O and resistance of 20 cm H2O/L/s without air leaks (C60R20). ‡ P < .05, C60R20 vs C40R10; § P < .05, C60R20L vs C40R10L. (For exact P values, see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com.).

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    Time for performing all the tests on all mechanically assisted cough devices by ICU physicians The graph shows the overall median time spent to accomplish all tasks by the product specialists (grey bar) compared with 10 ICU physicians (white bars). * P = .02, product specialists vs physicians.

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    Determinants of peak expiratory flow (PEF), which is the strongest indicator of cough efficacy. The magnitude of PEF is directly influenced by the pressure applied to the airway opening (Paw) during the expiratory phase, the time to reach 90% of preset expiratory Paw (T90E), and the volume insufflated during the inspiratory phase (tidal volume [VT]), corresponding to the pre-tussive volume and resulting from the extent of the inspiratory Paw and the speed of achievement of the time to reach 90% of preset inspiratory Paw (T90I).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Table 1.
  • Table 2.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 60 (7)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 60, Issue 7
1 Jul 2015
  • 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.
Bench Comparative Assessment of Mechanically Assisted Cough Devices
(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
Bench Comparative Assessment of Mechanically Assisted Cough Devices
Pamela Frigerio, Federico Longhini, Maurizio Sommariva, Enrica G Stagni, Francesco Curto, Tiziana Redaelli, Marco Ciboldi, Anita K Simonds, Paolo Navalesi
Respiratory Care Jul 2015, 60 (7) 975-982; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.03809

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Bench Comparative Assessment of Mechanically Assisted Cough Devices
Pamela Frigerio, Federico Longhini, Maurizio Sommariva, Enrica G Stagni, Francesco Curto, Tiziana Redaelli, Marco Ciboldi, Anita K Simonds, Paolo Navalesi
Respiratory Care Jul 2015, 60 (7) 975-982; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.03809
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
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • cough
  • physical therapy modalities
  • respiratory therapy
  • pulmonary medicine
  • mechanical ventilators
  • critical care

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