T-piece resuscitators: how do they compare?

Background The T-piece resuscitator (TPR) has seen increased use as a primary resuscitation device with newborns. Traditional TPR design uses a high resistance expiratory valve to produce positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) at resuscitation. A new TPR device that uses a dual flow ratio valve (fluidic flip) to produce PEEP/CPAP is now available (rPAP). We aimed to compare the measured ventilation performance of different TPR devices in a controlled bench test study. Design/methods Single operator provided positive pressure ventilation to an incremental testlung compliance (Crs) model (0.5–5 mL/cmH 2 O) with five different brands of TPR device (Atom, Neopuff, rPAP, GE Panda warmer and Draeger Resuscitaire). At recommended peak inflation pressure (PIP) 20 cmH 2 O, PEEP of 5 cmH 2 O and rate of 60 inflations per minute. Results 1864 inflations were analysed. Four of the five devices tested demonstrated inadvertent elevations in mean PEEP (5.5–10.3 cmH 2 O, p 2 O, p Conclusions Results show important variation in delivered ventilation from set values due to inherent TPR device design characteristics with a range of lung compliances expected at birth. Device-generated inadvertent PEEP and overdelivery of PIP may be clinically deleterious for term and preterm newborns or infants with larger Crs during resuscitation.