Comparative study of PEP mask and Flutter on expectoration in cystic fibrosis patients

Péter Borka, K. Gyurkovits, J. Bódis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of positive expiratory pressure (PEP) and Flutter on expectoration in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Data was gathered through 260 treatments with 10 patients (5 female; 19.2 years; BMI: 18.0). Two methods were used alternately, first the patients started with Flutter and proceeded with PEP, and the next occasion they exercised in the reverse order, starting with PEP then continuing with Flutter. During each phase, 5 sets of 10 exhalations were performed. Sputum weight was measured after the use of the first device, and at the end of the treatment. During sessions starting with Flutter 4.0 ± 4.0 g sputum was expectorated, continuing with PEP, an additional 5.2 ± 5.0 g was produced, altogether 9.2 ± 8.2 g. At sessions starting with PEP 7.4 ± 3.7 g was expectorated, continuing with Flutter an additional 0.8 ± 1.4 g, that is 8.2 ± 4.1 g. Comparing the two devices by themselves, PEP proved to be significantly more efficient then Flutter. Comparing the two treatment types it is statistically not proven, which one is preferable using both devices. Conclusively, PEP is significantly more efficient than the Flutter in sputum expectoration among CF patients. The Flutter is a useful supplementary device.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)324-331
Number of pages8
JournalActa Physiologica Hungarica
Volume99
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 1 2012

Fingerprint

Masks
Cystic Fibrosis
Pressure
Sputum
Equipment and Supplies
Exhalation
Therapeutics
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • cystic fibrosis
  • expectoration
  • Flutter
  • positive expiratory pressure
  • sputum weight

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Comparative study of PEP mask and Flutter on expectoration in cystic fibrosis patients. / Borka, Péter; Gyurkovits, K.; Bódis, J.

In: Acta Physiologica Hungarica, Vol. 99, No. 3, 01.09.2012, p. 324-331.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7d8c18cd304c4a4d9426329266ba8248,
title = "Comparative study of PEP mask and Flutter on expectoration in cystic fibrosis patients",
abstract = "The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of positive expiratory pressure (PEP) and Flutter on expectoration in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Data was gathered through 260 treatments with 10 patients (5 female; 19.2 years; BMI: 18.0). Two methods were used alternately, first the patients started with Flutter and proceeded with PEP, and the next occasion they exercised in the reverse order, starting with PEP then continuing with Flutter. During each phase, 5 sets of 10 exhalations were performed. Sputum weight was measured after the use of the first device, and at the end of the treatment. During sessions starting with Flutter 4.0 ± 4.0 g sputum was expectorated, continuing with PEP, an additional 5.2 ± 5.0 g was produced, altogether 9.2 ± 8.2 g. At sessions starting with PEP 7.4 ± 3.7 g was expectorated, continuing with Flutter an additional 0.8 ± 1.4 g, that is 8.2 ± 4.1 g. Comparing the two devices by themselves, PEP proved to be significantly more efficient then Flutter. Comparing the two treatment types it is statistically not proven, which one is preferable using both devices. Conclusively, PEP is significantly more efficient than the Flutter in sputum expectoration among CF patients. The Flutter is a useful supplementary device.",
keywords = "cystic fibrosis, expectoration, Flutter, positive expiratory pressure, sputum weight",
author = "P{\'e}ter Borka and K. Gyurkovits and J. B{\'o}dis",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1556/APhysiol.99.2012.3.9",
language = "English",
volume = "99",
pages = "324--331",
journal = "Physiology International",
issn = "2498-602X",
publisher = "Akademiai Kiado",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative study of PEP mask and Flutter on expectoration in cystic fibrosis patients

AU - Borka, Péter

AU - Gyurkovits, K.

AU - Bódis, J.

PY - 2012/9/1

Y1 - 2012/9/1

N2 - The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of positive expiratory pressure (PEP) and Flutter on expectoration in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Data was gathered through 260 treatments with 10 patients (5 female; 19.2 years; BMI: 18.0). Two methods were used alternately, first the patients started with Flutter and proceeded with PEP, and the next occasion they exercised in the reverse order, starting with PEP then continuing with Flutter. During each phase, 5 sets of 10 exhalations were performed. Sputum weight was measured after the use of the first device, and at the end of the treatment. During sessions starting with Flutter 4.0 ± 4.0 g sputum was expectorated, continuing with PEP, an additional 5.2 ± 5.0 g was produced, altogether 9.2 ± 8.2 g. At sessions starting with PEP 7.4 ± 3.7 g was expectorated, continuing with Flutter an additional 0.8 ± 1.4 g, that is 8.2 ± 4.1 g. Comparing the two devices by themselves, PEP proved to be significantly more efficient then Flutter. Comparing the two treatment types it is statistically not proven, which one is preferable using both devices. Conclusively, PEP is significantly more efficient than the Flutter in sputum expectoration among CF patients. The Flutter is a useful supplementary device.

AB - The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of positive expiratory pressure (PEP) and Flutter on expectoration in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Data was gathered through 260 treatments with 10 patients (5 female; 19.2 years; BMI: 18.0). Two methods were used alternately, first the patients started with Flutter and proceeded with PEP, and the next occasion they exercised in the reverse order, starting with PEP then continuing with Flutter. During each phase, 5 sets of 10 exhalations were performed. Sputum weight was measured after the use of the first device, and at the end of the treatment. During sessions starting with Flutter 4.0 ± 4.0 g sputum was expectorated, continuing with PEP, an additional 5.2 ± 5.0 g was produced, altogether 9.2 ± 8.2 g. At sessions starting with PEP 7.4 ± 3.7 g was expectorated, continuing with Flutter an additional 0.8 ± 1.4 g, that is 8.2 ± 4.1 g. Comparing the two devices by themselves, PEP proved to be significantly more efficient then Flutter. Comparing the two treatment types it is statistically not proven, which one is preferable using both devices. Conclusively, PEP is significantly more efficient than the Flutter in sputum expectoration among CF patients. The Flutter is a useful supplementary device.

KW - cystic fibrosis

KW - expectoration

KW - Flutter

KW - positive expiratory pressure

KW - sputum weight

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866528060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866528060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1556/APhysiol.99.2012.3.9

DO - 10.1556/APhysiol.99.2012.3.9

M3 - Article

VL - 99

SP - 324

EP - 331

JO - Physiology International

JF - Physiology International

SN - 2498-602X

IS - 3

ER -