Teschler H, Stampa J W, Farhat A A, Wessendorf T E, Konietzko N
Tanta University, Dept. of Chest Medicine, Egypt.
Pneumologie. 1998 Jun;52(6):305-10.
This study compares the performance characteristics and clinical effectiveness of the BiPAP-S/T (Respironics, USA) and VPAP-S/T (ResMed, Australia) pressure support ventilator during two weeks of nasal ventilation in 15 patients with stable chronic respiratory insufficiency. All patients were previously stabilised using nasal BiPAP ventilation for at least three months. Subjects had a maximum inspiratory pressure of 20 cm H2O and highest breathing rate of 24 per minute. VPAP is lighter and quieter than BiPAP-S/T (31 vs. 43 dB for IPAP:EPAP = 15:5 cm H2O and breathing frequency = 15 breaths per minute). Both machines demonstrate comparable and reliable triggering at low flow rates for zero and up to 30 l/min mask leak. Clinical evaluation in the S/T mode showed the two ventilators to be equally effective in supporting gas exchange during sleep. Sleep quality and number of respiratory arousals were very similar at the end of the two weeks' test period with BiPAP-S/T and VPAP-S/T. Synchronisation of VPAP-S/T during REM was probably better than with BiPAP-S/T, because in the presence of mouth leak BiPAP-S/T occasionally jammed in IPAP, but VPAP-S/T did not. In conclusion, in the tested settings VPAP-S/T is as effective as BiPAP-S/T in maintaining ventilation and controlling blood gases during sleep in patients with stable respiratory insufficiency.
本研究比较了BiPAP-S/T（美国伟康公司）和VPAP-S/T（澳大利亚瑞思迈公司）压力支持通气机在15例稳定期慢性呼吸功能不全患者进行两周鼻通气期间的性能特点和临床效果。所有患者此前均使用鼻BiPAP通气稳定治疗至少三个月。受试者的最大吸气压力为20 cm H₂O，最高呼吸频率为每分钟24次。VPAP比BiPAP-S/T更轻且更安静（在IPAP:EPAP = 15:5 cm H₂O且呼吸频率 = 15次/分钟时，分别为31 dB和43 dB）。两台机器在零流量至30 l/min面罩漏气的低流量情况下均表现出可比且可靠的触发性能。S/T模式下的临床评估显示，两种通气机在睡眠期间支持气体交换方面同样有效。在使用BiPAP-S/T和VPAP-S/T进行两周测试期结束时，睡眠质量和呼吸觉醒次数非常相似。VPAP-S/T在快速眼动期的同步性可能优于BiPAP-S/T，因为在存在口腔漏气的情况下，BiPAP-S/T偶尔会卡在IPAP状态，而VPAP-S/T则不会。总之，在测试条件下，VPAP-S/T在稳定期呼吸功能不全患者睡眠期间维持通气和控制血气方面与BiPAP-S/T同样有效。
