Document Sample
PEP Powered By Docstoc
					Positive Expiratory
 Pressure Therapy
              PEP Overview
n   What is PEP?
n   History of PEP
n   Current PEP Devices
n   Clinical Evaluation
n   Conclusion
                What is PEP?
n   PEP is a form of bronchial hygiene, and is one of
    the 3 adjuncts of positive airway pressure (PEP,
    CPAP, and EPAP).
n   PEP involves active expiration through a one-
    way valve against a variable flow resistor.
n   In modern PEP devices, flow resistance can be
    manipulated to adjust for a desired pressure.
                What does PEP do?
n   Enhances secretion mobilization and removal
n   Helps prevent infections
n   Helps mitigate atelectasis
n   Improved pulmonary mechanics and gas exchange

n   How does PEP accomplish this?
    n   2 ways:
         1. Filling under-inflated or collapsed alveoli via collateral
            ventilation (pores of Kohn, Canals of Lambert).*
         2. Helping to stint the airways open during expiration.
                         History of PEP
n   Origin of PEP
    -Traditional CPT with manual percussion, postural drainage, and vibration was first
    introduced in 1901 to assist airway clearance in children with bronchiectasis.

    -In the 1970’s PEP devices were developed in Denmark, as a means to aid the patient’s
    airway clearance with an effective, self-administered low-pressure device (mouth piece
    @ 5-20 cm H20).

    -High-pressure PEP therapy was developed in Austria (face mask @ 26-102 cm H20).

    -In 1991, PEP was introduced in the U.S. by Louise Lanafours from Sweden.

    -Since 1991, PEP devices have been modified and improved upon, which have
    produced devices such as the TheraPEP and Acapella.
              Current PEP Devices
n   Airway Oscillation Devices (AOD)
    n   Provide standard PEP with the added benefit of oscillating
        pressure within the airway
    n   Oscillations reduce the viscoelasticity of mucus
    n   Oscillations provide short bursts of increased expiratory
        airflow to help with secretion mobilization

         n Flutter Valve

         n TheraPEP

         n Acapella
              Current PEP Devices
n   Flutter Valve
    n   Developed in Switzerland
    n   Pipe-shaped AOD with a
        steel ball resting in an
        angled bowl.
    n   On exhalation, the ball
        oscillates at approximately
        15 Hz, and provides 10-
        25 cm H20.
    n   Gravity dependent
               Current PEP Devices
n   TheraPEP
    n   Designed by Smiths Medical
    n   Standard low-flow PEP device
    n   Built in pressure indicator
    n   Can be used with a mask or
    n   Has a 22mm OD which allows
        it to be docked with a nebulizer
    n   Inspiratory and expiratory
    n   Provides 10-20 cm H20
                Current PEP Devices
n   Acapella
    n   Designed by Smiths Medical Company
    n   Similar to the flutter valve but with greater
        functionality (AOD)
    n   Utilizes a counterweighted plug and magnet to
        achieve valve closure (not gravity dependent)
    n   3 Models:
         n   Low flow ( < 15 L/min, adjustable resistance)
         n   High flow ( > 15 L/min, adjustable resistance)
         n   Choice (any flow, adjustable frequency)
      What’s so great about PEP?
n   Readily accepted by patients
n   Shorter treatment time compared to CPT
n   Independent use
n   Inexpensive (Acapella $32.00 @ Amazon)
n   Portable
n   BUT…is it as effective as other methods of bronchial

         What does the research say?
Cystic Fibrosis – Standard PEP

n   Mortensen et al: PEP vs. PD&P
     n   Equally effective in secretion clearance
n   Darbee et al: PEP vs. HFCWC
     n   Both showed the same increase in FVC, FEV1, and sputum clearance.
n   McIlWaine et al: PEP vs. PD&P
     n   PEP had greater improvement in FEV1 and FVC
     n   Patients preferred PEP because they felt it was more effective, required less time,
         independent, and easier.
n   Oberwaldner et al: PEP vs. PD&P
     n   PEP produced a significantly greater sputum volume, expiratory flow rate, and
         decreased hyperinflation compared to PD&P.

Summary:             These studies show conflicting results. At the least, we can
                     conclude that standard PEP is just as effective as PD&P and
                     HFCWC for CF patients.
       What does the research say?
Chronic Bronchitis – Standard PEP

n   Christensen et al: Diaphragmatic breathing /FET vs. PEP/FET
     n PEP group had greater secretion clearance, lower
       exacerbation rate, lower rate of mucolytic and antibiotic use,
       and an increase in FEV1.
         What does the research say?
Cystic Fibrosis – OPEP

n   Newhouse et al: Flutter vs. IPPV
     n   Equally effective in sputum production, and increasing expiratory flows.
n   Hominick et al: Flutter vs. PD&P
     n   Equally effective in sputum clearance
     n   Flutter was more effective at increasing FEV1 and FVC
n   Konstan et al: Flutter vs. PD&P
     n   Flutter produced significantly more sputum.
     n   Flutter was assessed to be safe, cost effective, easy to use, and with greater patient adherence.
n   Gondor et al: Flutter vs. PD&P
     n   Flutter showed significant improvement in FVC compared to PD&P
     n   No difference in length of hospital stay

Summary:               Again, these studies show conflicting results, but at
                       the least OPEP is shown to be just as effective as
                       traditional methods of CPT for CF patients.
       What does the research say?
Chronic Bronchitis – OPEP

n   Bellone et al: Flutter vs. PD&P
     n Flutter had superior sputum production / clearance.
              Research Conclusions
n   What conclusions can be drawn from the research?
    n   The majority of the research regarding the efficacy of PEP has
        been conducted on CF patients.
    n   In some studies, PEP and OPEP have been shown to have
        superior secretion clearance and improvements in pulmonary
        function than traditional methods of CPT. However, other
        research clearly refutes these results, placing PEP as only as
        effective as traditional methods.
    n   Thus, the choice to utilize PEP as a primary method of bronchial
        hygiene therapy should be made on the basis of other criteria, such
        as cost and patient compliance.
n   PEP devices such as the Acapella are small, portable,
    cost effective, and patient preferred.
n   PEP devices haven’t been shown to be superior to
    other forms of CPT, but they haven’ been proven
    inferior either.
n   Continued research on the efficacy of PEP devices
    needs to be conducted.
n   At this time, the effectiveness of PEP devices has been
    shown to be equal or better than traditional methods of
    bronchial hygiene, and the decision to use PEP devices
    should be made on the basis of other factors, such as
    cost effectiveness.
n   Diomou G., Hristara-Papadopoulou A., Papadopoulou O., and Tsanakas, J. Current devices
        of respiratory physiotherapy. Hippokratia 2008 Oct-Dec;12(4):211–220.

n   Kacmarek, R.M., Stoller, J.K., Wilkins, R.L. (2009). Egan’s Fundamentals of Respiratory Care
        (9th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby Inc.

n   Myers, Timothy R. "Positive expiratory pressure and oscillatory positive expiratory pressure
          therapies." Respiratory Care Oct. 2007: 1308+. Academic OneFile. Web. 25 Nov. 2011.

n   University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2011). Health Informatin: TheraPEP [Data file].
          Retrieved from HEALTH_IN

n   Wilson, Richard., (Feb-March 1999) Positive Expiratory Pressure Therapy: The Key to
          Effective, Low-Cost Removal of Bronchial Secretions. RT Magazine. Retrieved from

n   Bellone A, Lascioli R, Raschi S, Guzzi L, Adone R. Chest physical therapy in patients with acute exacerbation
            of chronic bronchitis: effectiveness of three methods. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81(5): 558-560.
n   Christensen EF, Nedergaard T, Dahl R. Long-term treatment of chronic bronchitis with positive expiratory
            pressure mask and chest physiotherapy. Chest 1990;97(3):645-650.
n   Darbee JC, Kanga JF, Ohtake PJ. Physiologic evidence for high-frequency chest wall oscillation and breathing
            in hospitalized subjects with cystic fibrosis. Phys Ther 2005;85(12):1278-1289.
n   Gondor M, Nixon PA, Mutich R, Rebovich P, Orenstein DM. Comparison of flutter device and chest physical
            therapy in the treatment of cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbation. Pediatr Pulmonol 1999; 28(4):255-
n   Homnick DN, Anderson K, Marks JH. Comparison of the flutter device to standard chest
            physiotherapy in hospitalized patients with cystic fibrosis. A pilot study. Chest 1998;114(4):993-997.
n   Konstan MW, Stern RC, Doershuk CF. Efficacy of the Flutter device for airway mucus clearance in patients
            with cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr 1994;124(5 Pt 1):689-693.
n   McIlwaine PM, Wong LT, Peacock D, Davidson AG. Long-term comparative trial of conventional postural
            drainage and percussion versus positive expiratory pressure physiotherapy in the treatment of cystic
            fibrosis. J Pediatr 1997;131(4):570-574.
n   Mortensen J, Falk M, Groth S, Jensen C. The effects of postural drainage and positive expiratory pressure
            physiotherapy on tracheobronchial clearance in cystic fibrosis. Chest 1991;100(5):1350-1357.
n   Myers, Timothy R. "Positive expiratory pressure and oscillatory positive expiratory pressure therapies."
            Respiratory Care Oct. 2007: 1308+. Academic OneFile. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.
n   Newhouse PA, White F, Marks JH, Homnick DN. The intrapulmonary percussive ventilator and flutter device
            compared to standard chest physiotherapy in patients with cystic fibrosis. Clin Pediatr (Phila)
n   Oberwaldner B, Evans JC, Zach MS. Forced expirations against a variable resistance: a new chest
            physiotherapy method in cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol 1986;2(6):358-367.

Shared By:
xiaocuisanmin xiaocuisanmin