A novel reflex cough testing device
The reflex cough test is useful for detecting silent aspiration, a risk factor for aspiration pneumonia. However, assessing the risk of aspiration pneumonia requires measuring not only the cough reflex but also cough strength. Currently, no reflex cough testing device is available that can directly measure reflex cough strength. We therefore developed a new testing device that can easily and simultaneously measure cough strength and the time until the cough reflex, and verified whether screening with this new instrument is feasible for evaluating the risk of aspiration pneumonia.

http://bmcpulmmed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12890-017-0365-y
A novel reflex cough testing device
The reflex cough test is useful for detecting silent aspiration, a risk factor for aspiration pneumonia. However, assessing the risk of aspiration pneumonia requires measuring not only the cough reflex but also cough strength. Currently, no reflex cough testing device is available that can directly measure reflex cough strength. We therefore developed a new testing device that can easily and simultaneously measure cough strength and the time until the cough reflex, and verified whether screening with this new instrument is feasible for evaluating the risk of aspiration pneumonia. This device consists of a special pipe with a double lumen, a nebulizer, and an electronic spirometer. We used a solution of prescription-grade L-tartaric acid to initiate the cough reflex. The solution was inhaled through a mouthpiece as a microaerosol produced by an ultrasonic nebulizer. The peak cough flow (PCF) of the induced cough was measured with the spirometer. The 70 patients who participated in this study comprised 49 patients without a history of pneumonia (group A), 21 patients with a history of pneumonia (group B), and 10 healthy volunteers (control group). With the novel device, PCF and time until cough reflex could be measured without adverse effects. The PCF values were 118.3?±?64.0 L/min, 47.7?±?38.5 L/min, and 254.9?±?83.8 L/min in group A, group B, and the control group, respectively. The PCF of group B was significantly lower than that of group A and the control group (p?
Like
Comment
Share