You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Postscript
Letters
Choice of flow meter determines pressures delivered on a T-piece neonatal resuscitator
  1. G M Schmölzer1,2,3,4,
  2. R Bhatia1,3,
  3. C J Morley1,3,
  4. P G Davis1,3
  1. 1Neonatal Services, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
  2. 2Division of Neonatology, Department of Paediatrics, Medical University, Graz, Austria
  3. 3Murdoch Children Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
  4. 4Department of Physiology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Georg M Schmölzer, Department of Newborn Research, The Royal Women's Hospital, 20 Flemington Road, Parkville, Melbourne VIC 3052, Australia; georg.schmoelzer{at}me.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2009.179713

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Using a Neopuff Infant Resuscitator (Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand), Hawkes et al1 showed that a peak inflating pressure (PIP) >100 cm H2O can be delivered with a flow meter at maximum flow. We tested five flow meters to determine the pressures delivered at different flow rates.

    Gas flow was analysed using the Timeter RT-200 Flow Analyser (Timeter-Instruments, St Louis, Missouri, USA). Each flow meter was tested connected to a wall oxygen outlet or a low-flow air/oxygen blender (Cardinal Health, Ohio, USA).

    Positive pressure ventilation was given to a leak-free test lung using a Neopuff. Neopuff set to PIP 20 cm H2O, …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding Dr Schmölzer is supported in part by a Royal Women's Hospital Postgraduate Research Degree Scholarship and a Monash International Postgraduate Research Scholarship. Dr Davis is supported in part by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship. This study is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Programme grant No. 384100.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.