Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Potential hazard of the Neopuff T-piece resuscitator in the absence of flow limitation
  1. C P Hawkes,
  2. O A Oni,
  3. E M Dempsey,
  4. C A Ryan
  1. Department of Neonatology, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Cork, Ireland
  1. Correspondence to Professor C A Ryan, Department of Neonatology, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland; tony.ryan{at}hse.ie

Abstract

Objective: (1) To assess peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) and maximum pressure relief (Pmax) at different rates of gas flow, when the Neopuff had been set to function at 5 l/min. (2) To assess maximum PIP and PEEP at a flow rate of 10 l/min with a simulated air leak of 50%.

Design: 5 Neopuffs were set to a PIP of 20, PEEP of 5 and Pmax of 30 cm H2O at a gas flow of 5 l/min. PIP, PEEP and Pmax were recorded at flow rates of 10, 15 l/min and maximum flow. Maximum achievable pressures at 10 l/min gas flow, with a 50% air leak, were measured.

Results: At gas flow of 15 l/min, mean PEEP increased to 20 (95% CI 20 to 21), PIP to 28 (95% CI 28 to 29) and the Pmax to 40 cm H2O (95% CI 38 to 42). At maximum flow (85 l/min) a PEEP of 71 (95% CI 51 to 91) and PIP of 92 cm H2O (95% CI 69 to 115) were generated. At 10 l/min flow, with an air leak of 50%, the maximum PEEP and PIP were 21 (95% CI 19 to 23) and 69 cm H2O (95% CI 66 to 71).

Conclusions: The maximum pressure relief valve is overridden by increasing the rate of gas flow and potentially harmful PIP and PEEP can be generated. Even in the presence of a 50% gas leak, more than adequate pressures can be provided at 10 l/min gas flow. We recommend the limitation of gas flow to a rate of 10 l/min as an added safety mechanism for this device.

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.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

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

Linked Articles