Departamento de Fisioterapia, Associação Salgado de Oliveira, Institutos Superiores de Ensino do Censa, Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Respir Care. 2013 Feb;58(2):298-304. doi: 10.4187/respcare.01685.
Flutter VRP1, Shaker, and Acapella are devices that combine positive expiratory pressure (PEP) and oscillations.
To compare the mechanical performance of the Flutter VRP1, Shaker, and Acapella devices.
An experimental platform and a ventilator, used a flow generator at 5, 10, 15, 20, 26, and 32 L/min, were employed at angles of -30°, 0°, and +30° to evaluate Flutter VRP1 and Shaker, whereas Acapella was adjusted at intermediate, higher, and lower levels of resistance, including positive expiratory pressures (PEP) along with air outflow rates and oscillation frequencies.
When the relationships between pressure amplitudes of all air flows were analyzed for the 3 devices at low and intermediate pressures levels, no statistically significant differences were observed in mean pressure amplitudes between Flutter VRP1 and Shaker devices. However, both devices had different values from Acapella, with their pressure amplitude values being higher than that of Acapella (P = .04). There were no statistically significant differences in PEP for the 3 angles or marks regarding all air flows. The expected relationships between variables were observed, with increases in PEP, compared to those of air flows and resistance. Nevertheless, there was a statistically significant difference in frequency of oscillation between these devices and Acapella, whose value was higher than those of Flutter VRP1 and Shaker devices (P = .002). At intermediate pressure levels, the patterns were the same, in comparison to low pressures, although the Acapella device showed frequencies of oscillation values lower than those of Flutter VRP1 and Shaker (P < .001). At high pressures, there were no statistically significant differences among the 3 devices for frequency of oscillations.
The Flutter VRP1 and Shaker devices had a similar performance to that of Acapella in many aspects, except for PEP.
Flutter VRP1、Shaker 和 Acapella 是结合正呼气压力（PEP）和振荡的设备。
比较 Flutter VRP1、Shaker 和 Acapella 设备的机械性能。
使用实验平台和呼吸机，在-30°、0°和+30°的角度下，在 5、10、15、20、26 和 32 L/min 的流量发生器下，评估 Flutter VRP1 和 Shaker，而 Acapella 则在中、高和低阻力水平进行调节，包括 PEP 以及空气流出率和振荡频率。
当分析三种设备在低中和中压水平下所有气流的压力幅度关系时，在 Flutter VRP1 和 Shaker 设备之间的平均压力幅度没有观察到统计学上的显著差异。然而，这两种设备与 Acapella 的值不同，其压力幅度值高于 Acapella（P=0.04）。在所有气流中，三个角度或标记的 PEP 没有统计学上的显著差异。观察到了预期的变量之间的关系，与气流和阻力相比，PEP 增加。然而，这些设备与 Acapella 的振荡频率存在统计学上的显著差异，其值高于 Flutter VRP1 和 Shaker 设备（P=0.002）。在中压水平下，与低压相比，模式相同，尽管 Acapella 设备的振荡频率值低于 Flutter VRP1 和 Shaker（P<0.001）。在高压下，三种设备之间的振荡频率没有统计学上的显著差异。
除了 PEP 之外，Flutter VRP1 和 Shaker 设备在许多方面的性能与 Acapella 相似。
