You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 106, Issue 4
  • Comparison of inspiratory effort with three variable-flow nasal continuous positive airway pressure devices in preterm infants: a cross-over study

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Original research
Comparison of inspiratory effort with three variable-flow nasal continuous positive airway pressure devices in preterm infants: a cross-over study
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 18 June 2021
    Constant or variable flow nCPAP devices.
    • Martin Wald, Neonatologist Division of Neonatology, Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University

    Dear Sir or Madam!
    Nasal CPAP is one of the most important therapies in neonatology. Accordingly, the manufacturers of such devices are very interested in gaining market share. Not all of their "sales arguments" correspond to clinical or physical reality. This is why studies comparing different devices are so extremely important.
    The authors claim to have compared three CPAP systems that are referred to as "variable-flow" devices. This refers to CPAP systems that generate their CPAP through one or more jets, corresponding to jet ventilation as it is known in laryngeal surgery. But does the Miniflow CPAP belong in this category? The Miniflow has one inspiratory and one expiratory tube and does not have a jet. Pressure is generated through the expiratory valve of a ventilator. Such CPAP devices are actually called "constant-flow" devices.
    Basically, the division into variable-flow and constant-flow devices is considered very confusing and, above all, physically questionable. However, the terms are very persistent. In any case, however, the statement of the study could be supplemented. It shows not only that there is no difference between variable flow devices, but equally no difference between variable and constant flow devices.
    Yours sincerely,
    Martin Wald

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.