resmed autoset vs. respironics mseris w/aflex

Straight from the horse's (Dr. Michael Berthon -Jones's) mouth:
"In 1990, he joined the newly established ResMed company where he is currently <2002>Chief Scientific
Officer.
Here Dr Berthon-Jones speaks about the work behind the development of CPAP devices.

http://www.sömnapne.com/en-au/assets/documents/resmedica/ResMedica1_10906r1.pdf

A very ineteresting read about the Autoset logic, flow limitations, and hypopneas. May also explain why some of us need IFL1=off on the Puritan Bennett 420e

Edit: I've give this its own topic viewtopic/t36598/The-thinking-behind-th ... toset.html
O.

Oops, sorry. I hope I didn't give you, or anyone else, the impression that I was saying YOU take things out of context. I have never thought that and have never seen you come close. In fact, I have your post bookmarked where you put it so well here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34675#p296672

And I do love that link you pointed to. I've used it and quoted sections of it a few times myslef, and it is very helpful. Although I think those words are often misunderstood by some (not you) too.

My only problem is when people quote that feature of the ResMed algorithm out of context in the sense of ignoring what the machine's approach is. New ones come to this forum and ask: "So which auto is good to buy." And the pat answer, implied anyway, is: "Don't get the ResMed because it doesn't do diddly-squat once its pressure is above 10 cm."

That is a misunderstanding.

ResMed autos can and do respond to minor flow limitations, even when the machine is at a pressure above 10 cm, as the quoted link says. The other link calls that "fine-tuning" in response to "flattening." Or as the link you give in your post I linked to above puts it:

How AutoSet Spirit Responds to Apnea
typically prevents apneas, by treating flow limitation and snore. These usually act as early signals for more severe apneic events http://www.resmed.com/en-au/clinicians/ ... clinicians

Some people (ResMed, anyway) think that approach is a very smart one to a complicated problem, though I can understand if some disagree. But that way of handling things is meant to keep the machine from raising pressure in an inappropriate response to a central apnea. They feel that a response to flow limitaion (or flattening) will be enough to fine-tune your pressure. It seems to work for many. And Respironics autos don't catch every apnea, or respond to every apnea, that occurs either.

If one machine puts the stress on responding to apneas (or every other apnea) that occur at a certain pressure and the other puts the stress on trying to prevent apneas from occurring at that pressure by fine-tuning based on flow limitations (flattening) and snore, both machines are attempting to deal with apnea-prevention, just from different approaches, seems to me. So pointing to one aspect of the algorithm without clarifying the difference in approach can be misleading. Maybe one approach is better than the other. But both approaches seem less than perfect in a number of ways.

In my opinion.

Which is subject to change.

And I may be way out in left field and not even talking a good game. I have no way of knowing, because I'm not listening when I'm talking.

Maybe I'm just having an emotional response to all the times when someone talks bad about Slinky's machines.

One of the research guys just brought me a printout of the article in Respiration. That will be my light reading tonight. Thanks again for that.