Talk:Positive airway pressure

First Sentence

"Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the use of continuous positive pressure to maintain a continuous level of positive airway pressure." ...what are you talking about, this doesn't clarify anything and this needs to be reworded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.34.53 (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

agreed, this sentence is crap! --MarmotteiNoZ 05:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Baby with CPAP picture

The picture of the infant on CPAP is labeled incorrectly. The device behind the child is a pulse oximeter and the baby is NOT connected to a flow generator. The baby is on what is called "bubble CPAP". It is breathing against the pressure generated by exhaling against a physical column of water. You basically exhale into a tube that has its end submerged into a giant cup of water. However many CM the tube is submerged , that is how much CPAP is applied. Ie: if you secure the tube 10cm below the water line, that is CPAP of 10. Joel RRT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.170.181 (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging CPAP and CPAP machine

I concur with the merge request. There is little point to having two articles. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 01:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The principles of CPAP go hand-in-hand with the design and operation of the machine. We need to incorporate recent evidence (JAMA earlier this month) that it is effective in pulmonary oedema. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It's two names for the same thing, and there is no real distinction of content where someone would be interested in one, but not the other.Algr 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. A CPAP machine is a CPAP, and a CPAP is a CPAP machine. --Bmeloche 03:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree for the same reasons. --A. B. 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree to merge; I believe the Positive_airway_pressure one is the best written one which must be kept and only possibly amended by new info from the Continuous_positive_airway_pressure one which is ways lower quality. The title of the merged article should IMHO be Continuous_positive_airway_pressure, as this (and the CPAP acronym that goes with) are the most commonly used in the area (both industry and clinical) --MarmotteiNoZ 05:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree to merge, however there is a difference. A simple CPAP device is a gas flow generator with a valve at one end (crudely put) the thing they are sometimes referring to here is a CPAP generator using mechanical switches. one is hospital based and usually used with high O2 levels; used for Type I and sometimes Type II respiratory failure. These are adjustable. The other is domiciliary air turbine generator and without O2 input, used for sleep apnoea in the home and uses a restrictor bleed (simple regulated hole in the mask or tube) They are very different beasts indeed. People also often confuse these with BiPAP machines(or BIPAP different again, one spontaneous, one machine based and patented delivery system [Drager]) They are completely different than assist machines, CPAP is just a flow device and possibly an alarm, often none.

CjW (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Realistic needs

I'd like to see some info on realistic expectations of using the machine: Real cost of use, Life-span, mask & hose usage, ect. (Or at least links to sites with such info.) The salesmen here keep telling me absolutely ludicrous things, like that you have to buy a new mask every three months! And then they keep saying that the insurance will pay for it all, and encourage me to buy like a madman. (Anyone foolish enough to think they are talking to some kind of doctor is going to be paying thousands unnecessarily.) Algr 02:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting one and supposedly medicaid is going to help with the payments, otherwise its $150.00 monthly rental through the hospital; and $250.00 through a private medical supplier. --Talen Soti 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merge request. These are definately the same things. Danapsimer 03:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge these silly pages! I think the CPAP/APAP/BiPAP techniques are merging, though. Also might include discussion on supplemental oxygen usage - when indicated, and reasons not to pursue it. Also might include difficulties adjusting to breathing apparati, such as REM rebound.

The Merge

Rather than complaining, I thought I would just merge the two. I'm sure it will need a patch up by someone else, as this is my first major contribution to the wikiworld. Hope it will suffice for the moment. Cheers. --Sleepy_boy_on_the_tracks

History of CPAP

I think that heated humidification (in most climates), a comfortable mask, and, above all, intelligent electronics (e.g. C-Flex(tm) or EPR(tm)) are a must. Otherwise what you have is an oversized and expensive aquarium pump. Without every aid to minimize discomfort, what you get is non-compliance with use. From what I've seen and read, this can be particularly a problem with patients experiencing some degree of dementia--ironically those who may derive some of the greatest benefit from CPAP. See: CPAP curbs sleepiness in demented apnea patients

I would like to see most of the machines being discussed in this article moved to a new section titled "History of CPAP" that includes "simple fixed-pressure CPAP", "early auto-adjusting machines", etc. It should perhaps be remarked in passing these machines' surprising general lack of sophistication given the overall market for life-saving medical devices. Unfortunately, my remarks about a history section are at the point of this writing somewhat rhetorical, as what should be historical is still upon us, at the cost of unnecessary suffering (including that of loved ones) and premature decline and death for those who abandon treatment as a result.

Relatedly, I am concerned that the latest innovations in effective treatment do not make it into Wikipedia in a timely manner. This is a general concern that crosses all medical diagnosis and treatment topics, not just on Wikipedia, but elsewhere as well. Where content can't be edited directly, I'd like to see indicators of "superseded" or "obsolete" on studies and articles so deemed by their authors. For instance, I read that early attempts at electronic enhancements could some cause harm, including episodes of Central Sleep Apnea by auto-titrating machines ramping up pressure too high. However, I don't know what the state of the art is as far as whether this is situation is ameliorated enough by additional technological enhancements.--John Majerus 15:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Can we have a photo of the machine and its various parts? Ppe42 01:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I can take some pictures of mine and my sisters vpap and bipap macheins. In about a weeks time.

Merge with VPAP

Should we also think about merging the separate VPAP article into CPAP? The ideas behind the devices are essentially the same. Robert K S 09:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A single page for all nPAP devices is ideal. With a few very small exceptions, there's really not a big difference between once nPAP device and another nPAP device. It makes a lot of sense to have them on one page. External links (don't remember one off hand but will post one after I find one later today) generally have information on all of the nPAP devices on one page anyway, so why not on Wiki? Superslacker87 09:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like one vote "yes"... Robert K S 16:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that the combined article be titled Positive airway pressure, since VPAP and APAP are perforce not subsets of CPAP. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree they all should be combined. James R. Skinner 02:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

BiPAP and C-Flex are NOT the same thing

The article indicates that VPAP/BiPAP is the same as C-Flex. On the contrary though, they are very different. BiPAP has a fixed inhale and a fixed exhale pressure, and is viewed as a form of noninvasive (no throat tube) ventilation. C-Flex on a CPAP machine, on the other hand, is just an ordinary CPAP machine that happens to momentarily reduce pressure slightly at the beginning of each exhale. There is no fixed exhale pressure that's different from a fixed inhale pressure, and CPAP-with-C-Flex machines are not considered to be noninvasive ventilators. These distinctions should be made clear in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.105.244 (talk • contribs)

• This is true. Exhalation relief technologies such as C-Flex (Resperonics) or EPR (Resmed) are not VPAP/BiPAP and should be discussed in a different section James R. Skinner 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

CPAP and uses beside sleep apnoea

"CPAP has also been used to prevent premature infants from going into respiratory failure thereby preventing the need for intubation. [reference from 1978]"

I know from personal experience (two premature babies in 2000 and 2004) that CPAP is still very commonly used for that purpose, at least in Denmark. It should be possible to find some newer references and add a section about this! Apus 13:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thousands (possibly 10s of thousands) worldwide are put on some form of non-invasive positive airway pressure ventilation each day for reasons beside sleep apnoea. This article has a few 'asides' as to other reasons, but the scope is very limited, and the article omits many important uses. The article is written almost exclusively for people on home CPAP as treatment of sleep apnoea. The explanation as to splinting the airway does not apply to the majority of people placed on CPAP for acute respiratory illness. People who read the article in its current form wishing to understand positive pressure ventilation because their child or relative had been commenced on PAP support in hospital would be absolutely no better informed for reading the article. I attempted to address the issue here, but this was deleted for 'not answering the whys & wherefores'. Whyso 04:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Whyso, your new intro was a good attempt, but it also deleted useful information. Can you find some way to integrate the information in the current introduction with the information in your introduction? (In particular, I objected to the removal of "used primarily in the treatment of sleep apnea, for which it was first developed" from the first sentence of the introduction, since the introduction of an article about a therapy should establish for the reader the raison d'etre for the therapy.) There were also two other major problems with your version of the introduction which led me to revert it rather than trying to improve it. First, it had a number of typographical and stylistic problems, making it unreadable in spots. Second, it provided too much detail for an introduction. Bulleted lists should be integrated in other parts of the article. Robert K S 08:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll try againWhyso 06:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Limited geographic scope

• Can someone explain why this article has been added to the Limited geographic scope category? James R. Skinner 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no clue. In my opinion, this type of tag should be explained when it is placed. Since it has not been explained, I am removing it. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The tag was added in September by Robert K S -- you could ask him. --A. B. 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I will. I have a long-standing beef with editors who tag an article and then don't explain. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I added the tag because the "Availability" section only references the U.S., UK, and Australia. I do not believe the solution is to enhance this section with availability discussions for other areas. I believe the information should be generalized or removed entirely. Actually, I believe that the "Availability" section, along with the "Care and Maintenance" and "Travelling" sections, are in violation of established Wikipedia policy. Refer to item 4 under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" on What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I'm not the sort who promotes deletions, so I would prefer to see the information generalized and the article improved rather than have the sections axed outright. I'm restoring the Worldwide view tag. Robert K S 04:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are overapplying policy in this instance. Detailed instructions are prohibited, but this differs from general information about how a device is used, safety issues, etc., all of which are of encyclopedic interest. It would be improper to describe how to change a filter, but it is fine to note that such devices normally contain a filter, and to mention why it should be changed on a regular basis. IMO, the article comes far closer to the latter than to the former.

A description of how durable medical equipment is handled in the health systems of different countries is, IMO, encyclopedic. It strikes me as an odd argument that it is better not to have that information than to have incomplete information. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Take, for example, the following excerpt: "These procedures should be performed weekly. Note: These procedures are for general information only and are not intended to replace those recommended by the PAP machine manufacturer. Always follow the manufacturer’s recommendations that are included with your PAP machine." Stating the frequency of maintainance procedures (and doing so devoid of any reference)—is this encyclopedic? Including a disclaimer—is this something that should be included in an encyclopedia? The use of the personal pronoun "your", assuming and implying the reader is a PAP patient—is that encyclopedic? The travel section is slightly more palatable, but it may be—I don't recall—because of edits that I made a long time ago. Finally, you imply the argument that incomplete information should be deleted, but I specifically said that I do not promote deletion of useful information and, in fact, I have not made deletions. As it stands, the maintenance section is most certainly a how-to section and a violation of policy; the information should be generalized to improve the section, and the worldwide view tag is warranted because the specific information in the article caters only to three (wealthy, English-speaking) nations. I do not believe I am qualified to improve the article, which is why I have left it to the hands of those who are more knowledgable about the subject. Robert K S 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it reads too much like an instruction manual -- I just think it overstates the case to say it violates policy. It's a semantic distinction, and not worth discussing further, since we agree that the text needs improving.

I am at a loss how to satisfy your geographical scope request without removing information. Sometimes removing information is the right thing for an article -- after all, to edit is to choose. Some of the detail can probably go, but I still think that comparison being conducted is important and encyclopedic. Well, one issue at a time. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job improving the maintenance and travelling sections. Thanks! Robert K S 17:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The geographic issue will require more thought. Much of the information I put in comes from the wall of the local respiratory and cardiac rehabilitation clinic, so I will check for some good citations. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Robert K S made many good points and I think the article has been improved. I disagree with removing useful information on availability in different countries. I have also moved the geographic scope to that section:

• It's the only section I see that's limited in scope.
• Just maybe it will flag someone reading that section to think -- "Oh, well here's what they do in Italy ..." and add material for another country.

If the availability section gets too unwieldy with countries, then it can always be calved off to a separate, linked article. --A. B. 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The statement that diagnosis involves a PSG is geographically very limited. As per research in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/169/6/668) only 10% of diagnosis involves full PSG. JoeMcBogof 10:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Price

I would love to know average costs to purchase, rent, etc.

• As prices change and vary greatly across the globe, does it really add to this article? Would be something for price comparison sites more than an encyclopedia IMO. JoeMcBogof 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Although it probably doesn't add to the article, I too would like to know how much one should pay for a decent unit. Does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.19.161 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

An average machine costs $500 wholesale and is billable through most insurances under the DMI portion. A VPAP machine is about $4500 but typically needs a lot of paperwork pushed around to get it covered IF they will. Masks run about $150, rental is about $170 a month, however insurance typically picks up 50% or more of it. A VPAP rental is about $1000 a month. However these machines are on a rent to purchase plan. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.123.115 (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Or you can google "CPAP device vendors" to see what they are asking. Your health care provider should be able to tell you about insurance coverage (or national plan coverage), which varies greatly. Prices for anything related to health care vary enormously, from country to country, from time to time, and from plan to plan, so there is no point to including prices for medical equipment or procedures in Wikipedia, except in the most general terms for historical purposes. Solo Owl 19:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Citations and References

New to proper Wikipedia editing but certainly not new to CPAP and OSA, I started to add some references here and there to journals I've read. Can someone please verify I've done them correctly? I've done in-text citations, do I also list them again at the bottom? Also, what else do we need to get rid of the top warning about the lack of references? JoeMcBogof 16:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever moved my citations to the appropriate spot. Now I know! I have some more coming up when I have a minute. The warning at the top still says "this has no citations" which is now incorrect. Who can remove or alter that notice? JoeMcBogof 10:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I know of many quality sources out there and this article is currently a bit sparse. For starters, I run a portal for CPAP users myself. Not wanting to be unethical, can someone please look at www dot cpap dot co dot uk and give me feedback on correctness for Wikipedia?

Also, there are many great CPAP pictures on Flickr and OSA/CPAP videos on YouTube. Is it accepted practice to link to such sources?

What else are we looking for to add to the article as far as external sources are concerned? JoeMcBogof 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

VPAP vs. BiPAP

Does anyone have any information on the difference between VPAP and BiPAP? I keep seeing BiPAP come up in my web searches about apnea, but this article doesn't mention it at all. It would be a useful addition.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.10.243 (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• They're different names for the same type of machine. I think the name BiPAP may be trademarked by Respironics...? --24.166.2.5 (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• VPAP is trademarked by ResMed. BiPAP for Respironics. I can't comment on the technical differences. But I am concerned about the many trademarked names being used.--Heliox00 (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In a hospital setting

This section contains numerous statements of questionable accuracy. The bullet list items adide, anyway. PAP ventilation often sees home use for the exact same reasons as what is suggested as being hospital use specific. Neuromuscular disease patients for example make such use of PAP at home. And patients with other problems as well. In summation, this section needs some work. --24.166.2.5 (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Disadvantages

The disadvantages section talks only about compliance. There are other issues. If humidification does not happen, there can be throat issues. Also, I've heard of severe issues with CPAP and runny nose and have experienced minor ones. Finally, air can get forced into the GI system and cause bloating, pressure, and gas. Since wikipedia shouldn't be a SOURCE for this sort of information, I'm hoping someone will know of an article or articles with this information to cite. (Even with all these "disadvantages" I can't go a night without my CPAP). -- Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.15.2 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Another side effect is minor skin irritation due to a tight mask on the face, this section should not talk of compliance but of the disadvantages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.24.232 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

These disadvantages should be listed in the article. It says they are "well known" to user groups, and the groups can be found on the Internet. But that is not a real reference or description is it? Also, the writing style reeks "marketing speak" as if from a brochure. I hope I'm wrong on that one. --Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no published sources on the problems, and I suggest that this growing industry has little interest in researching them! Or they would be in specialist journals. Having tried CPAP for 5 months I am now off it because of the sinus issue. My problem was developing a runny nose that started several hours after sleep. I never had more than 4 hours sleep in a night. That is to do with me and is no reflection on the machinery. Then I realized that 80%+ of us apnoeacs are overweight, including me, and so I am addressing that.86.42.192.137 (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

nPAP vs CPAP vs Mechanical Ventilation

Just to open discussion. This whole PAP section is morphing (a good thing). I can see where this started by having a CPAP and CPAP Machine page. We are now adding several other modes of PAP (VPAP, BiPAP etc). These really are more than the basic CPAP. These provide elevated levels of support, in some cases significant elevation of support. CPAP is a very specific creature Continuous Positive Airway Pressure. Lay people use it as treatment for OSA. Clinician use it to hopefully prevent intubation. I propose we leave this article for just CPAP, and move any BiLevel support to mechanical ventilation.--Heliox00 (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Great article

Great article. However, the following paragraph: "CPAP treatment can be highly effective in treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. For some patients, the improvement in the quality of sleep and quality of life due to CPAP treatment will be noticed after a single night's use. Often, the patient's sleep partner also benefits from markedly improved sleep quality, due to the amelioration of the patient's loud snoring." Only seems a repetition of what before was already said, or adding impertinent information. Should it accordingly be removed? Twipley (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge from APAP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Woodshed (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

---

The stub at Automatic Positive Airway Pressure should be moved into Positive airway pressure#Continuous pressure devices.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 23:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, a single article makes more sense. DCwom (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Support jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. No apparent objections; I'll try to take care of it. Woodshed (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mask comfort

I believe the statements from the previous author are biased and are impossible to verify and do not contribute to the article:

"Most people find wearing the mask uncomfortable. Breathing out against the positive pressure resistance (the expiratory positive airway pressure component, or EPAP) is also unpleasant. These factors lead to inability to continue treatment due to patient intolerance in about 20% of cases where it is initiated."

Additionally, reading such a statement could perhaps discourage someone from seeking relief for obstructive sleep apnea, and should be removed from the article altogether. Letmecheck (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

=================

Response to "reading such a statement could perhaps discourage someone from seeking relief for obstructive sleep apnea..." I think it is about time people who have had actual experience with CPAP tell others what it is really like - both those who appreciated the solution, and those who have had negative experiences. A CPAP machine is an expensive investment. People should be given a balanced view of the results, rather than the Medical community's 'sunshine and roses' view of it. The patient community should be the ones in control of what is foisted on them by Medical practitioners. 12:28, 17 Sept 2011 (UTC)

Removal of baby with CPAP picture

I edited the page by removing the baby with CPAP picture. It was not related to the content of the section it was in. It also showed an equipment set-up that is unsafe and contrary to user instructions. Cpapman (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

compliance

Did the Emperor have, or not, clothes?

Why is it missing a reference to the Bernoulli Effect causing wearers of the CPAP contraptions to tear off their devices while being suffocated? Collapsible tissues close-up when subjected to a stream of air.

69.9.29.234 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

===============

Experienced users also abandon this therapy because they find the mask IS uncomfortable and clumsy. The mask itself often obstructs the nasal passages, making breathing difficult or causing suffocation. A discussion of this would be in order also.

A further discussion of the Medical Community's insistence that this is a viable and 'good' solution, and the application of terms such as 'non-compliance' to patients unwilling or unable (indicating the problem is with the patient, not the clumsy, primitive solution) may be enlightening for the prospective CPAP user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.9.216 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hft

I would like to see the article stick to details of the CPAP. The strong HFT article should be a separate page and not dilute understanding of the topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.147.197 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This article needs some TLC. I just fixed some bad grammar and added spaces between a few sentences. I also am uncomfortable that it recommends using Hydrogen Peroxide to clean the tank. It sounds like a good idea to me, but I would never recommend anybody else do it without being absolutely sure it is safe. Somebody needs to take a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.82.156 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

HFT (High Flow Therapy) should definitely be split off. It's not that closely related to CPAP, and anyone researching "CPAP" will be unlikely to find HFT information relevant. HFT looks like something for hospital use only and most "CPAP" patients will not be using it. This really sounds almost like spam of some sort. Archangle0 (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorporate both stubs into this main article

Both Continuous_positive_airway_pressure and Bilevel_positive_airway_pressure are little more than stubs compared to this main article, which already contains for each subtopic a section that is almost as large as the subtopic's separate page. The main article could absorb both subtopics with no change to its structure and some enrichment of its content. The two subtopic pages would then become redirect pages to this page. I am all too familiar with PAP as it relates to sleep apnea, and would like to see it described on a comprehensive integrated page. Such an article could help people who are trying to understand their situation decide whether specific recommendations they may get are based more on treatability or on profitability. Plenty of both is available, and only facts can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornithikos (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

History

Some of the history of this treatment is described at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/sleep_apnea_evolution_and_breathing_masks_an_excerpt_from_david_k_randall_s_dreamland.single.html WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Confusing language

Some parts of this article are extremely poorly written.

Example 1: "Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the use of continuous positive pressure to maintain a continuous level of positive airway pressure."

Example 2: "The FiO2; the percent oxygen inhaled by the patient, usually ranges roughly from 24% to 35% as 100% O2 delivered from the cannula is diluted with air at about 21% oxygen." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.116.173 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging Continuous positive airway pressure and Positive airway pressure

The Continuous positive airway pressure and Positive airway pressure articles have had a merge tag for a year that directs here, but I don't see any discussion. There seems to be a history of prior merges, so it's quite confusing. I would vote in favor of merging and hope the discussion can take place and reach consensus here. If I'm just missing something, please let me know though. -Thomas Craven (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. This article could be merged into a big-tent of respiratory pressure control, and use some work to be more encyclopedic. At present, it seems to me more like a tech manual and a sales brochure. On the bright side, I'd never heard of CPAP or any of this stuff before today, so thumbs-up for new knowledge! Mang (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. This article as it is seems more like a bit of trivia about Positive airway pressure and devices used for some ambulatory and ward patients. I would merge it now but don't know how to do it. Yet will come back to it soon (in 2 weeks) and see if there has been any change, after all the merge is tagged now for almost two years. Learningnave (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral. I need to read the articles. There is also a difference between steady & variable CPAP, which should be addressed. — Lentower (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment If a merge happens, please add a #REDIRECT [[]] in place of the merge from article. — Lentower (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Procedure. To follow the consensus and the WP:Merge processes, you need to add {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}} templates and have each point at this section header setting up a section and adding the pointers is something too often forgotten). This informs the most concerned editors the consensus in progress. I also suggest waiting a week before deciding what the consensus is. — Lentower (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Objectivity?

Reading through this article, it seems very negative, biased. It also comes off as rather random. I'd suggest the whole thing be rewritten as one comprehensive piece.

As an aside, the costs are in constant flux. The machine that I've just gotten is about $500 online, plus $300 for a humidifier and heated hose, and another $50-80 for a mask -- under $900 all told, and is state of the art, auto-adjusting. Yet the insurance company will be billed over $100 a month for it. So there are two separate prices: What the user pays, and what the insurance company gets billed (which is often far more than what it actually pays.) Hope this clarifies.

JT (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge

It's been suggested (and somewhat agreed upon) that Continuous positive airway pressure should be merged into this page. If there are no objections, I will work to merge the two shortly. Best, C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 01:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Positive airway pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080721154222/http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/hpr21.pdf to http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/hpr21.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Flow vs pressure

Quote: 'When the machine is turned on, but prior to the mask being placed on the head, a flow of air comes through the mask. After the mask is placed on the head, it is sealed to the face and the air stops flowing'

As anyone who actually uses CPAP knows, this is just untrue - all the masks and nasal pillows have permanently open vents through which the air flows to atmosphere to 'wash out' the CO2, if it was a closed system one would rapidly suffocate - there is quite a substantial net flow through the delivery hose and mask, which in itself often causes problems. A stream of air can blow on ones partner, to their annoyance, and if the vent is poorly designed it can generate a lot of noise, ditto.

I would be grateful if someone could modify the paragraph.

109.144.222.187 (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)