Talk:Positive airway pressure

message: "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)
replies: text:  agreed, this sentence is crap! --MarmotteiNoZ 05:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: First Sentence

message: 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)
thread_title: Baby with CPAP picture

message: I concur with the merge request. There is little point to having two articles. --JohnDO|Speak your mind  01:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I also agree.  A CPAP machine is a CPAP, and a CPAP is a CPAP machine. --Bmeloche 03:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree for the same reasons. --A. B. 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Merging CPAP and CPAP machine

message: 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)
thread_title: Realistic needs

message: 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)
thread_title:  History of CPAP 

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

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: BiPAP and C-Flex are NOT the same thing

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK I'll try againWhyso 06:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPAP and uses beside sleep apnoea 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Price 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations and References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  VPAP vs. BiPAP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In a hospital setting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disadvantages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  nPAP vs CPAP vs Mechanical Ventilation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Great article 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mask comfort 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of baby with CPAP picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  compliance 

message: 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)
thread_title: ===============

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hft 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorporate both stubs into this main article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging [[Continuous positive airway pressure]] and [[Positive airway pressure]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Objectivity? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Positive airway pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flow vs pressure