OBJECTIVE:Heat and moisture exchangers (HME) increase circuitry deadspace compared to heated humidifiers (HH). This study compared the effect of HH and HME during noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on arterial blood gases and patient's effort assessed by respiratory muscles pressure-time product and by work of breathing (WOB). DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized cross-over study in a medical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Nine patients receiving NIV for moderate to severe acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. MEASUREMENTS: HME was randomly compared to HH during periods of 20 min. Each device was studied without (ZEEP) and with a PEEP of 5 cmH(2)O. At the end of each period arterial blood gases, ventilatory parameters, oesophageal and gastric pressures were recorded and indexes of patient's effort calculated. RESULTS:Minute ventilation was significantly higher with HME than with HH (ZEEP: 15.8+/-3.7 vs. 12.8+/-3.6 l/min) despite a similar PaCO(2) (60+/-16 vs. 57+/-16 mmHg). HME was associated with a greater increase in WOB (ZEEP: 15.5+/-7.7 vs. 8.4+/-4.5 J/min and PEEP: 11.3+/-5.7 vs. 7.3+/-3.8 J/min) and indexes of patient effort. NIV with HME failed to decrease WOB compared to baseline. Addition of PEEP reduced the level of effort, but similar differences between HME and HH were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving NIV for moderate to severe acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, the use of HME lessens the efficacy of NIV in reducing effort compared to HH.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Heat and moisture exchangers (HME) increase circuitry deadspace compared to heated humidifiers (HH). This study compared the effect of HH and HME during noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on arterial blood gases and patient's effort assessed by respiratory muscles pressure-time product and by work of breathing (WOB). DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized cross-over study in a medical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Nine patients receiving NIV for moderate to severe acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. MEASUREMENTS: HME was randomly compared to HH during periods of 20 min. Each device was studied without (ZEEP) and with a PEEP of 5 cmH(2)O. At the end of each period arterial blood gases, ventilatory parameters, oesophageal and gastric pressures were recorded and indexes of patient's effort calculated. RESULTS: Minute ventilation was significantly higher with HME than with HH (ZEEP: 15.8+/-3.7 vs. 12.8+/-3.6 l/min) despite a similar PaCO(2) (60+/-16 vs. 57+/-16 mmHg). HME was associated with a greater increase in WOB (ZEEP: 15.5+/-7.7 vs. 8.4+/-4.5 J/min and PEEP: 11.3+/-5.7 vs. 7.3+/-3.8 J/min) and indexes of patient effort. NIV with HME failed to decrease WOB compared to baseline. Addition of PEEP reduced the level of effort, but similar differences between HME and HH were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving NIV for moderate to severe acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, the use of HME lessens the efficacy of NIV in reducing effort compared to HH.
Authors: Antonio M Esquinas Rodriguez; Raffaele Scala; Arie Soroksky; Ahmed BaHammam; Alan de Klerk; Arschang Valipour; Davide Chiumello; Claude Martin; Anne E Holland Journal: Crit Care Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Sean P Keenan; Tasnim Sinuff; Karen E A Burns; John Muscedere; Jim Kutsogiannis; Sangeeta Mehta; Deborah J Cook; Najib Ayas; Neill K J Adhikari; Lori Hand; Damon C Scales; Rose Pagnotta; Lynda Lazosky; Graeme Rocker; Sandra Dial; Kevin Laupland; Kevin Sanders; Peter Dodek Journal: CMAJ Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Michael J Banner; Carl G Tams; Neil R Euliano; Paul J Stephan; Trevor J Leavitt; A Daniel Martin; Nawar Al-Rawas; Andrea Gabrielli Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Amanda Corley; Claire M Rickard; Leanne M Aitken; Amy Johnston; Adrian Barnett; John F Fraser; Sharon R Lewis; Andrew F Smith Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-30
Authors: Laurence Vignaux; Frédéric Vargas; Jean Roeseler; Didier Tassaux; Arnaud W Thille; Michel P Kossowsky; Laurent Brochard; Philippe Jolliet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 17.440