Solenne Taillé

Physiological effects of different interfaces during noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure

Objective:To test the short-term physiologic effects (indexes of respiratory effort, ventilation, and gas exchange), leaks, patient-ventilator asynchrony, and comfort of four noninvasive ventilation (NIV) facial, oronasal, or oral interfaces with major differences in internal volume. Design:Prospective, short-term, crossover randomized physiologic study. Setting:Medical intensive care unit in a university hospital. Patients and Participants:Fourteen consecutive patients receiving NIV for either hypoxemic (n = 7) or hypercapnic (n = 7) acute respiratory failure. Interventions:Four interfaces, tested randomly over consecutive sequences, had very high (977 mL), high (163 mL), moderate (84 mL), or virtually no internal volume (mouthpiece). The pressure level was increased in two patients with the larger mask, and was decreased in all patients when using the mouthpiece. Measurements and Main Results:Despite differences in internal volume, no apparent dead space effect was observed on minute ventilation, work of breathing, or arterial CO2 levels. Compared with baseline, NIV was uniformly successful in reducing indexes of respiratory effort: the pressure–time product of the respiratory muscles decreased from a median (25th–75th interquartile range) of 179 (158–285) cm H2O·sec·min−1 to values between 91 and 111 during NIV, with no differences between masks (p = 0.84). Few differences were observed in terms of arterial blood gases and breathing pattern. Leaks and patient-ventilator asynchronies were greater with the mouthpiece, and comfort with this interface was deemed poor for most patients. Conclusion:The internal volume of the masks had no apparent short-term dead space effect on gas exchange, minute ventilation, or patient’s effort, suggesting that, with the exception of mouthpiece, interfaces may be interchangeable in clinical practice provided adjustment of the ventilatory device parameters are performed.

Original ResearchCritical Care MedicineHumidification Performance of 48 Passive Airway Humidifiers: Comparison With Manufacturer Data

INTRODUCTION Heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) are increasingly used in the ICU for gas conditioning during mechanical ventilation. Independent assessments of the humidification performance of HMEs are scarce. The aim of the present study was thus to assess the humidification performance of a large number of adult HMEs. METHOD We assessed 48 devices using a bench test apparatus that simulated real-life physiologic ventilation conditions. Thirty-two devices were described by the manufacturers as HMEs, and 16 were described as antibacterial filters. The test apparatus provided expiratory gases with an absolute humidity (AH) of 35 mg H(2)O/L. The AH of inspired gases was measured after steady state using the psychrometric method. We performed three hygrometric measurements for each device, measured their resistance, and compared our results with the manufacturer data. RESULTS Of the 32 HMEs tested, only 37.5% performed well (>or= 30 mg H(2)O/L), while 25% performed poorly (< 25 mg H(2)O/L). The mean difference (+/- SD) between our measurements and the manufacturer data was 3.0 +/- 2.7 mg H(2)O/L for devices described as HMEs (maximum, 8.9 mg H(2)O/L) [p = 0.0001], while the mean difference for 36% of the HMEs was > 4 mg H(2)O/L. The mean difference for the antibacterial filters was 0.2 +/- 1.4 mg H(2)O/L. The mean resistance of all the tested devices was 2.17 +/- 0.70 cm H(2)O/L/s. CONCLUSIONS Several HMEs performed poorly and should not be used as HMEs. The values determined by independent assessments may be lower than the manufacturer data. Describing a device as an HME does not guarantee that it provides adequate humidification. The performance of HMEs must be verified by independent assessment.

Short-Term Effects of Humidification Devices on Respiratory Pattern and Arterial Blood Gases During Noninvasive Ventilation

BACKGROUND: The impact of humidification devices on ventilatory and arterial blood gases parameters during noninvasive ventilation (NIV) remains controversial. The aim of the study was to compare the short-term impact of heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) and heated humidifiers (HHs) during NIV for either hypercapnic or hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. METHODS: Consecutive subjects receiving NIV were successively treated with HME and HH in randomized order for 30 min each. At the end of each period, arterial blood gases were measured and ventilatory parameters were recorded. RESULTS: Eighty-one subjects were enrolled, of whom 52 were hypercapnic (with or without acidosis) and 29 hypoxemic. Minute ventilation was greater with the HME, in comparison with the HH (15 [12–18] vs 12 [10–16] median [interquartile range], P < .001), while PaCO2 was increased when using HME, indicating a dead space effect. This effect was observed in all subjects, but was more pronounced in hypercapnic subjects (PaCO2 62 ± 17 mm Hg with HME vs 57 ± 14 with HH, P < .001). In a subgroup of 19 subjects with respiratory acidosis, alveolar hypoventilation improved only with the HH. The amplitude of the dead space impact was a function of the degree of hypercapnia. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an HME decreased CO2 elimination during NIV, despite increased minute ventilation, especially in hypercapnic subjects.

Influence of Ambient Temperature and Minute Ventilation on Passive and Active Heat and Moisture Exchangers

OBJECTIVE: During invasive mechanical ventilation, inspired gases must be humidified. We previously showed that high ambient temperature greatly impaired the hygrometric performance of heated wire-heated humidifiers. The aim of this bench and clinical study was to assess the humidification performance of passive and active heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) and the impact of ambient temperature and ventilator settings. METHODS: We first tested on the bench a device with passive and active humidification properties (Humid-Heat, Teleflex), and 2 passive hydrophobic/hygroscopic HMEs (Hygrobac and Hygrobac S, Tyco Healthcare). The devices were tested at 3 different ambient temperatures (from 22 to 30°C), and at 2 minute ventilation settings (10 and 20 L/min). Inspired gas hygrometry was measured at the Y-piece with the psychrometric method. In addition to the bench study, we measured the hygrometry of inspired gases in 2 different clinical studies. In 15 mechanically ventilated patients, we evaluated Humid-Heat at different settings. Additionally, we evaluated Humid-Heat and compared it with Hygrobac in a crossover study in 10 patients. RESULTS: On the bench, with the Hygrobac and Hygrobac S the inspired absolute humidity was ∼30 mg H2O/L, and with the Humid-Heat, slightly < 35 mg H2O/L. Ambient temperature and minute ventilation did not have a clinically important difference on the performance of the tested devices. During the clinical evaluation, Humid-Heat provided inspired humidity in a range from 28.5 to 42.0 mg H2O/L, depending on settings, and was only weakly influenced by the patients body temperature. CONCLUSIONS: In this study both passive and active HMEs had stable humidification performance with negligible influence of ambient temperature and minute ventilation. This contrasts with previous findings with heated wire-heated humidifiers. Although there are no clear data demonstrating that higher humidification impacts outcomes, it is worth noting that humidity was significantly higher with the active HME.