question-icon

Is RAM CPAP as effective as CPAP technology?

default
Posted on Mon, 30 May 2016
Question: Do you feel XXXXXXX CPAP is as effective as CPAP with Hudson, INCA or other nasal prongs or mask CPAP for use in Neonatal ICU?
doctor
Answered by Dr. Neel Kudchadkar (2 hours later)
Brief Answer: XXXXXXX CPAP - the present and the near future - comprehensively explained.

Detailed Answer:
Hi!

1. You are justified in pointing out the one weakness in XXXXXXX CPAP technology, the fallibility of the nasal prongs.
2. The fact remains though, that some (or quite a few) neonates, do develop events without any forewarning, the majority of them do not.
3. XXXXXXX CPAP technology as a device has been subject to extensive clinical trials by the FDA. Due take note of the amount of evidence, and effort it does take to convince the FDA - to commission any drug, device or biologic.

4. Your observations are authentic and based on practical experience and fact.

5. XXXXXXX CPAP technology is not perfect. Nothing is. Neither are Hudson, INCA and it's competitors.

6. Instead of analyzing to it's raw finish, the merits and demerits of all approaches, you have the-
A. Expertise.
B. Experience.
C. Qualifications.
D. Practical knowledge.

I strongly suggest that you conceive of a prong that you feel would eliminate this one flaw. I agree with you that it is a serious flaw if even a single neonate is affected.

I suggest that you sketch your design, get an IP lawyer, patent it with the US patent office. It can be done online for a few dollars.

I further ask you to email a company that manufactures XXXXXXX CPAP devices.

This new design will prove beneficial to countless infants and accomplish your objectives. There is no need to argue or debate things with your team.

1. What I have advised you to do is not far fetched or polyanna.
2. I will give you technological precedent of people like you who have succeeded.

Case 1:

3 decades back, every doctor and nurse in the world knew in their bones, the sort of way, they knew the earth revolves around the sun, that gastric ulcers needed life long antacid treatment and horrible operations that removed large parts of peoples stomachs.

People died of Gastric ulcers.

Everyone agreed that massive antacids and gastrectomy were a great way of doing things.

The sort of way - people around you agree that XXXXXXX CPAP is just amazing.

Then came along an intern from Australia called Dr. XXXXXXX XXXXXXX He was just like you. He knew that the treatments for gastric ulcers were flawed.

Just as you have your own theories (probably) about a perfect adaptable nasal device for XXXXXXX CPAP, Dr. XXXXXXX had his theory - he told his team, that people with gastric ulcers had an infection, and could be cured in a moment with plain antibiotics.

No one listened to Dr. XXXXXXX

He went ahead, and devised a drug regimen - to do just that. With existing commonly available medications.

Today, decades later, NO ONE gets their stomach removed, NOR does anyone die of bleeding ulcers.

He got published, recognized and heavily financially compensated for his breakthrough.

Note that you just have to visualize an improvement. Dr. XXXXXXX had a tougher task.

I have perfectly answered your question from virtually all angles.

You can ask me about further incidents in the history of medical technology, that made a difference to lives of people, if you are so interested.

Like for instance, did you ever know, that the Carelli anastamosis in cardiac surgery that can link together a severed vessel with a single stitch, wasn't Dr. XXXXXXX Carelli's idea, but was inspired when he watched the movements of needle work (used on women's clothing) performed by an unknown person (probably a woman - now forgotten by history). This is a known medical technological and historical fact. Note this carefully. You can research the details. The fact remains though that Dr. Carelli published it first, and got
famous and well compensated.

I like your innovative nature, and freedom of thought.

I am open to further questioning from you.

Dr. Neel Kudchadkar




Above answer was peer-reviewed by : Dr. Naveen Kumar
doctor
Answered by
Dr.
Dr. Neel Kudchadkar

General & Family Physician

Practicing since :2004

Answered : 532 Questions

premium_optimized

The User accepted the expert's answer

Share on

Get personalised answers from verified doctor in minutes across 80+ specialties

134 Doctors Online

By proceeding, I accept the Terms and Conditions

HCM Blog Instant Access to Doctors
HCM Blog Questions Answered
HCM Blog Satisfaction
Is RAM CPAP as effective as CPAP technology?

Brief Answer: XXXXXXX CPAP - the present and the near future - comprehensively explained. Detailed Answer: Hi! 1. You are justified in pointing out the one weakness in XXXXXXX CPAP technology, the fallibility of the nasal prongs. 2. The fact remains though, that some (or quite a few) neonates, do develop events without any forewarning, the majority of them do not. 3. XXXXXXX CPAP technology as a device has been subject to extensive clinical trials by the FDA. Due take note of the amount of evidence, and effort it does take to convince the FDA - to commission any drug, device or biologic. 4. Your observations are authentic and based on practical experience and fact. 5. XXXXXXX CPAP technology is not perfect. Nothing is. Neither are Hudson, INCA and it's competitors. 6. Instead of analyzing to it's raw finish, the merits and demerits of all approaches, you have the- A. Expertise. B. Experience. C. Qualifications. D. Practical knowledge. I strongly suggest that you conceive of a prong that you feel would eliminate this one flaw. I agree with you that it is a serious flaw if even a single neonate is affected. I suggest that you sketch your design, get an IP lawyer, patent it with the US patent office. It can be done online for a few dollars. I further ask you to email a company that manufactures XXXXXXX CPAP devices. This new design will prove beneficial to countless infants and accomplish your objectives. There is no need to argue or debate things with your team. 1. What I have advised you to do is not far fetched or polyanna. 2. I will give you technological precedent of people like you who have succeeded. Case 1: 3 decades back, every doctor and nurse in the world knew in their bones, the sort of way, they knew the earth revolves around the sun, that gastric ulcers needed life long antacid treatment and horrible operations that removed large parts of peoples stomachs. People died of Gastric ulcers. Everyone agreed that massive antacids and gastrectomy were a great way of doing things. The sort of way - people around you agree that XXXXXXX CPAP is just amazing. Then came along an intern from Australia called Dr. XXXXXXX XXXXXXX He was just like you. He knew that the treatments for gastric ulcers were flawed. Just as you have your own theories (probably) about a perfect adaptable nasal device for XXXXXXX CPAP, Dr. XXXXXXX had his theory - he told his team, that people with gastric ulcers had an infection, and could be cured in a moment with plain antibiotics. No one listened to Dr. XXXXXXX He went ahead, and devised a drug regimen - to do just that. With existing commonly available medications. Today, decades later, NO ONE gets their stomach removed, NOR does anyone die of bleeding ulcers. He got published, recognized and heavily financially compensated for his breakthrough. Note that you just have to visualize an improvement. Dr. XXXXXXX had a tougher task. I have perfectly answered your question from virtually all angles. You can ask me about further incidents in the history of medical technology, that made a difference to lives of people, if you are so interested. Like for instance, did you ever know, that the Carelli anastamosis in cardiac surgery that can link together a severed vessel with a single stitch, wasn't Dr. XXXXXXX Carelli's idea, but was inspired when he watched the movements of needle work (used on women's clothing) performed by an unknown person (probably a woman - now forgotten by history). This is a known medical technological and historical fact. Note this carefully. You can research the details. The fact remains though that Dr. Carelli published it first, and got famous and well compensated. I like your innovative nature, and freedom of thought. I am open to further questioning from you. Dr. Neel Kudchadkar