Is the flow-safe disposable continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) system as effective as non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) in the treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary Oedema?

Oxygenation Performance of Different Non-Invasive Devices for Treatment of Decompression Illness and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

“…As already discussed, further parameters such as PEEP may become more important in those patients. From our first experience in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (data not shown) and as reported in patients with pulmonary edema ( Uz et al, 2021 ), devices like the Flow-Safe II that generate PEEP may perform better in those cardiopulmonary compromised patients than they did in our healthy subjects. As most divers and many victims of smoke and CO intoxication normally do not suffer from severe cardiopulmonary disease that impairs oxygenation, we are therefore confident that the conclusions drawn from of this study can be applied to this special patient cohort.…”

“…The least effective device for increasing arterial pO2 was the Flow-Safe II system, which is a disposable CPAP system that generates a PEEP of approximately 11–12 cm H 2 O at a flow rate of 15 L/min. This finding is surprising, as the Flow-Safe II device has been shown to improve blood gas parameters in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema as effective as NPPV ( Uz et al, 2021 ). An explanation for the lower efficacy of the Flow-Safe II system in our study may be that we included only healthy volunteers without cardiopulmonary disease.…”