OBJECTIVETo compare the effect of the use of intermittent and continuous positive airway pressure in postoperative patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.
METHODSThis study included forty patients divided into two groups: one undergoing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP Group), and the other undergoing intermittent pressure (Müller Resuscitator Group). The patients were evaluated in relation to the several study variables at the following time points: preoperative, 3rd, 24th, and 48th hours.
RESULTSThe patient groups were homogeneous in relation to the several demographic and clinical variables. The values of pO 2 , pCO 2 and sO 2 were within normal limits and no signifi cant differences were found between the groups. Regarding respirometry, the groups showed signifi cant differences in the tidal volume and respiratory rate at the 48th postoperative hour. Dyspnea and use of accessory muscle in postoperative assessments were found with a signifi cantly higher frequency in patients undergoing CPAP. Patients undergoing Müller Resuscitator had a normal chest radiograph more frequently than did patients undergoing CPAP.
CONCLUSIONBoth devices were shown to be able to keep pO 2 , pCO 2 , and sO 2 values within normal limits. However, when the objective was pulmonary reexpansion with less imposed workload, the Müller Resuscitator was more effective because of its prompter action and consequently lower levels of dyspnea, respiratory rate (RR) and use of accessory muscle were observed.
KEY WORDSIPPB, continuous positive airway pressure, physical therapy.