CPAPtalk.com

jnk wrote:

Slinky wrote:Fully data capable bi-level auto.

YOU figure out where you want to place THAT answer in your poll. I can't.

This poll makes much more sense than mine a while back. Here is how I read the choices of the poll:

(1) A non-auto CPAP or BiPAP without full data.

(2) A non-auto CPAP or BiPAP with full data.

(3) An auto of any sort, which gives full data.

Take it easy on her Jeff ... all the kids outran her today and got way more easter bunny eggs than she did, so she's a bit grumpy.

Nope. Didn't have the energy to run around looking for easter eggs. Still whupped from chasing a horse down the road yesterday! Granddaughter left a barn gate open when she and daughter went riding in the tree farm yesterday so the Paint decided to go visit the neighbor's horses a mile away. I don't know who I wanted to beat on more - the horse or the granddaughter. Not that it made much difference 'cause I didn't have the energy to beat a fly to death after chasing that son of a gun!!

This beats the heck out of me. I've got an auto, and I honestly don't know if I'm getting the best therapy.
Especially after reading the thread about Resmeds and Respironics and pressures above 10. I caught about 1.5% of the discussion.

packitin wrote:This beats the heck out of me. I've got an auto, and I honestly don't know if I'm getting the best therapy.
Especially after reading the thread about Resmeds and Respironics and pressures above 10. I caught about 1.5% of the discussion.

The "above 10" statements are a distraction based on a misunderstanding, so don't let that "information" distract you.

The trick to getting good treatment from any brand of auto is to be sure the minimum is set high enough. An auto user needs to set the minimum pressure high enough to get the reported AHI as low as possible, within reason. If you do that, you get good treatment.

jnk wrote:

Slinky wrote:Fully data capable bi-level auto.

YOU figure out where you want to place THAT answer in your poll. I can't.

This poll makes much more sense than mine a while back. Here is how I read the choices of the poll:

(1) A non-auto CPAP or BiPAP without full data.

(2) A non-auto CPAP or BiPAP with full data.

(3) An auto of any sort, which gives full data.

Re the 'FULL DATA' matter - only Bipaps & Vpaps that record Minute Ventilation, Tidal Flow, Breaths-per-minute, PLUS AHI (hi & ai & pressure) really privide full data. Autos on their own provide a subset of the above.

So Full Data really only applies to the latest Bilevels. But am sure most people are quite happy with that subset.

DSM

dsm wrote:

jnk wrote:

Slinky wrote:Fully data capable bi-level auto.

YOU figure out where you want to place THAT answer in your poll. I can't.

This poll makes much more sense than mine a while back. Here is how I read the choices of the poll:

(1) A non-auto CPAP or BiPAP without full data.

(2) A non-auto CPAP or BiPAP with full data.

(3) An auto of any sort, which gives full data.

Re the 'FULL DATA' matter - only Bipaps & Vpaps that record Minute Ventilation, Tidal Flow, Breaths-per-minute, PLUS AHI (hi & ai & pressure) really privide full data. Autos on their own provide a subset of the above.

So Full Data really only applies to the latest Bilevels. But am sure most people are quite happy with that subset.

DSM

Thanks, DSM!

Would it help if I changed my post to "AHI data" instead of "full data"? Or is there a better way for me to word that?

jeff

Aw, shucks, I suppose yer right, dsm, but it was just so much easier to say .... and to mean .... and, oh heck, you just HAD to go and get technical on us, didn't you?? Yer a party pooper despite you are right!!!

I have 2 data capable auto machines that both report good AHI data numbers, one makes me feel like I can't remember feeling so good, the other makes me sick.

Georgio

Slinky wrote:Aw, shucks, I suppose yer right, dsm, but it was just so much easier to say .... and to mean .... and, oh heck, you just HAD to go and get technical on us, didn't you?? Yer a party pooper despite you are right!!!

Slinky

Yes I am a party pooper

Its just when I saw 'full data' it kind of took control of my fingers & I couldn't stop them 'correcting' the impression that Autos prive some more than the latest bilevels ( it used to be the otherway round where Autos did provide more - but not anymore)

JNK,

Just ignore my techo comments

Doug

dsm wrote: . . . Just ignore my techo comments . . .

Too late, I already changed my post to reflect your points.

I apperciate your keeping an eye on me, my friend. It's what any community should be about. It ain't party-pooping to me; it's just part of the party!

jeff

Since the question was about the machine's capability here is my answer:

My ResMed S8 AutoSet II is a Data Capable APAP machine.
But I am locked into straight CPAP mode,
and I do not have access to any Clinical Data,
Just AHI, AI, HI, and Leaks on the LCD.
Of course I can see usage.

Bottom line, what the machine is capable of and what I can do with it are two different things.

I was surprised by the high percentage of APAP users in the survey.
But I a month ago I couldn't even spell CPAP

I've been wondering. Why do you think that manufacturers make CPAPs at all instead of making only APAPs? I realize that there may be a cost factor but one would think that the savings of decreasing the number of variations and the reduction of inventory costs could offset the manufacturing cost differences.

Snorebert wrote:I've been wondering. Why do you think that manufacturers make CPAPs at all instead of making only APAPs? I realize that there may be a cost factor but one would think that the savings of decreasing the number of variations and the reduction of inventory costs could offset the manufacturing cost differences.

Apaps were the 'ants pants' of machines when they provided data (when Apaps 1st started providing data, they provided just what we users wanted & cpaps didn't, bilevels didn't provide AHI until Respironics added that to their Bipaps.

So if you wanted to read your own data the Apaps were the best story in town (circa 2005/6/7). But, Apaps have one failing, too many RTs send the user out the door with the machine set 4-20 & that just wasn't working too well. Apaps were always an attempt to deliver minimum pressure needed because it was believed (rightly) that higher pressures made cpap mask management so hard that too many people would give up cpap alltogether.

Bilevels not only now provide better data, but they provide a good deal of the relief the Autos promised to deliver but didn't really get there. If anyone really wants Auto capability, they can now get it via a Bilevel Auto.

So back to your question, I believe making bilevels instead of cpaps would make far more sense but, as long as one costs more than the other (smae for cpap vs auto), we will see both on the market. Autos just aren't the "bee's knees' of xPAP therapy.

DSM

Snorebert wrote: . . . one would think that the savings of decreasing the number of variations and the reduction of inventory costs could offset the manufacturing cost differences. . . .

You have my vote as the next CEO of GM.

You are miles ahead of me, DSM. I am still a relative rookie in this game and have a lot more to learn. But having tried CPAP more than a dozen years ago and failing miserably I can say that the advances that I have seen - humidifiers and much more face-friendly interfaces - still make me wonder why the much less capable equipment is deemed acceptable by the medical community.