Impact of Airway Humidification Strategy in the Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND\nHumidification of inspiratory gases is mandatory in all mechanically ventilated patients in ICUs, either with heated humidifiers (HHs) or with heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs). In patients with COVID-19, the choice of the humidification device may have relevant impact on patients management as demonstrated in recent studies. We reported data from 2 ICUs using either HME or HH.\n\n\nMETHODS\nData from patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation during the first wave in 2 ICUs in Québec City were reviewed. In one ICU, HMEs were used, whereas heated-wire HHs were used in the other ICU. We compared ventilator settings and arterial blood gases at day one after adjustment of ventilator settings. Episodes of endotracheal tube occlusions (ETOs) or subocclusions and a strategy to limit the risk of under-humidification were reported. On a bench test, we measured humidity with psychrometry with HH at different ambient temperature and evaluated the relation with heater plate temperature.\n\n\nRESULTS\nWe reported data from 20 subjects positive for SARS-Cov2, including 6 in the ICU using HME and 14 in the ICU using HH. In the HME group, PaCO2 was higher (48 vs 42 mm Hg) despite higher minute ventilation (171 vs 145 mL/kg/min predicted body weight [PBW]). We also reported 3 ETOs occurring in the ICU using HH. The hygrometric bench study reported a strong correlation between heater plate temperatures of the HH and humidity delivered. After implementation of measures to avoid under-humidification, including heater plate temperature monitoring, no more ETOs occurred.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe choice of the humidification device used in patients with COVID-19 has a relevant impact on ventilation efficiency (increased CO2 removal with lower dead space) and on complications related to low humidity, including ETOs that may be present with heated-wire HHs when used with high ambient temperatures.