+- Apnea Board Forum - CPAP | Sleep Apnea (https://www.apneaboard.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Public Area (https://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Forum-Public-Area)
+--- Forum: Main Apnea Board Forum (https://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Forum-Main-Apnea-Board-Forum)
+--- Thread: Bench evaluation of 10 APAP / CPAP machines (/Thread-Bench-evaluation-of-10-APAP-CPAP-machines)
Bench evaluation of 10 APAP / CPAP machines - Costas P - 06-06-2017
My friends,
everything started this afternoon, as I managed to switch my Weinmann / Löwenstein Prisma 20A Auto CPAP into Dynamic mode APAP instead of the Standard mode in which it was initially set. This happened after a comment of TBMx who asked me about this feature, which I completelly ingored until then.
Having no idea about this feature, later this evening I started "googling" trying to find some information about it, when I came across a very interesting - in my opinion - article published in March 15, 2016 from a team of researchers led by Isetta V. in Spain. This Research Article under the title: "Novel Approach to Simulate Sleep Apnea Patients for Evaluating Positive Pressure Therapy Devices" published by PLoS ONE, really got my attention.
It's about a method these researchers developed in "creating" a "bench" for testing under the exactly same conditions 10 well known APAP / CPAP machines, drawing some really interesting conclusions about the abilities of these machines, based on measurements and data collected from them in their labs. They're trying to figure out how these machines work - without having access to their "secrets" - algorithms, and how they "react" in the treatment of sleep apnea. How well do they manage to cope with the patient and how succesfull they are in treating apnea.
These APAP / CPAP machines are:
AirSense 10 (A), AirSense 10 AutoSet for Her (B) by ResMed
Dreamstar by Sefam ©
Icon by Fisher & Paykel (D)
Resmart by BMC (E)
Somnobalance (F) and Prisma 20A (G) by Weinmann
System One by Respironics (H)
iCH (I) and XT-Auto by Apex (J)
The order in which I'm writting them is the same as in the article.
You can read the full article either in .pdf format here:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151530&type=printable
or in the site of NCBI under the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4792477/
It is explaining the model they used to perform this test, along with the data collected for each device and of course there is a conclusion at the end.
You could read this article, in case you're interested, and perhaps we could have a discussion about it, in this forum. Perhaps this could be proved a start for better understanding the machines we're using, how they operate and how well they treat our apnea problems. There are some very detailed data collected and presented in easy to read and compare tables, so after reading this, let's start exchanging ideas.
The key-point of my suggestion to this open discussion is not to decide which machine is better, but to uderstand better the services they're offering us, in the treatment of apnea. Needless to say that all members with a knowledge on this subject are kindly requested to help us all understand better and appreciate the functionality of our CPAPs.
So, Ladies and Gentlemen, let your reading begin, so as to start reading your valuable comments!...
Costas
RE: Bench evaluation of 10 APAP / CPAP machines - tedgreen - 06-06-2017
Nice paper.
Conclusion was that the Resmed Airsense 10 and "for her" models achieved the lowest AHI in the simulation, and also applied the highest top and mean pressures.
RE: Bench evaluation of 10 APAP / CPAP machines - DeepBreathing - 06-07-2017
There is a discussion of a similar bench test here: http://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Thread-2015-peer-reviewed-article-comparing-a-bench-test-of-11-APAPs?highlight=bench
RE: Bench evaluation of 10 APAP / CPAP machines - zonk - 06-07-2017
The article does mention that the study was partially supported and funded by ResMed ... and goes on to say the following:
ResMed Science Centre provided support in the form of salaries for authors AJW, DR, and HW, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the 'author contributions' section.
RE: Bench evaluation of 10 APAP / CPAP machines - Costas P - 06-07-2017
I would never like to think that ResMed or any other company would "buy" such a survey, just to "enhance" their brand-name and increase their sales. Actually, I would never think that any company would do so, simply enough because it would be the first thing to make us suspicious about it.
In my opinion there are some very interesting parts of this survey, like the comparative tables, which actually show us, under the same circumstances how the various APAP / CPAPs deal with apnea. It is very interesting to see the different approach of each manufacturer on this and although no algoriths were issued to the research team the graphs are speaking for themselves... aren't they?...
Costas
RE: Bench evaluation of 10 APAP / CPAP machines - zonk - 06-08-2017
old thread from the old forum http://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Thread-Auto-Adjusting-Positive-Airway-Pressure
RE: Bench evaluation of 10 APAP / CPAP machines - CB91710 - 06-08-2017
Do a Google search on Amsoil.
Nearly every comparison chart and review is on a dealer's page.
Ya, it happens. Sometimes the results are legitimate, as the manufacturer funds the study for purposes of honest research on improving their product. However, if the results show them in a negative light, the study normally becomes classified "internal" and is not released to the public.
That's the problem. The results MAY be valid for this study... but we may not be aware of a Respironics study that shows Resmed as #2, simply because Respironics finished 3rd.
RE: Bench evaluation of 10 APAP / CPAP machines - Timur - 06-08-2017
Interesting link, thanks Costas.
Especially because it focuses on a model that the researchers believe simulate women's sleep and breathing patterns.
So, just for fun (hey, we all have hobbies!) last night I decided to try my machine in the "for her" mode after a long time of being in the CPAP mode.
Set the machine to 7cm H20 to - 11cm H20, EPR 3.
It was a very interesting night .... results in SH show that the highest pressure was 7.84, with the majority of the night around 7.4, lower than what I have my CPAP set to currently. (9cm)
But here is the real surprise ... the flow limitations were considerably better handled at this lower pressure.
LOL, one night does not mean much, as we all know, but I'm going to continue with the "for her" mode for a while and see what happens.
So, thanks for linking to that study.