The low-cost mePAP device achieved a mean comfort rating of 6.36 compared to 5.92 for a standard Fisher & Paykel CPAP, with 42.5% of subjects preferring the mePAP.
Does the low-cost mePAP device provide comparable comfort and preference to a standard Fisher & Paykel CPAP in healthy subjects?
A low-cost prototype PAP device (mePAP) demonstrated comparable comfort and user preference to a standard commercial CPAP device in healthy subjects, suggesting potential as an accessible alternative.
Absolute Event Rate: 6.36% vs 5.92%
Respiratory diseases affect 14% of New Zealand's population, with over 100, 000 suffering from sleep apnoea which prevents breathing due to blocked airways. The gold standard of treatment is positive airway pressure (PAP) devices, most commonly continuous PAP (CPAP). Current devices can cost between NZ800 and NZ2500, causing a financial burden to users who are most commonly from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Therefore, a low-cost, high-quality PAP device is required to increase equity and accessibility in healthcare and respiratory research. The mePAP was designed and a one-off prototype constructed for NZ250. Early benchtop testing showed fluctuations in the delivered pressure of the mePAP due to low-cost components. Hence, validation assessed against a currently prescribed Fisher & Paykel CPAP model, to compare accuracy and comfort was completed to determine the performance of the mePAP. Simulated breathing on a mechanical lung and a clinical trial on 40 healthy subjects were conducted. The mePAP was the preferred device for 17 subjects (42. 5%), with 10 (25%) having no preference with no difference felt between the two devices. A mean comfort rating of 6. 36 compared to 5. 92 for the Fisher & Paykel CPAP confirmed the two devices were comparable, with the fluctuations not felt by users. These results validate the mePAP as a low-cost alternative PAP device for research purposes, with the potential to provide high-quality and comfortable treatment comparative to current industry devices. Therefore, in future, the mePAP can help to increase accessibility and equity of access to first-line healthcare devices and thus health outcomes.
Hill et al. (Mon,) conducted a other in Healthy (n=40). mePAP device vs. Fisher & Paykel CPAP was evaluated on Mean comfort rating. The low-cost mePAP device achieved a mean comfort rating of 6.36 compared to 5.92 for a standard Fisher & Paykel CPAP, with 42.5% of subjects preferring the mePAP.