OBJECTIVE: To assess selected physiological effects of non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure delivered by head helmet (CPAPH), a special interface device designed to completely contain the head of the patient, compared to face mask (CPAPM). DESIGN: Randomized physiological study. SETTING: University research laboratory. PATIENTS: Eight healthy volunteers. INTERVENTION: Continuous positive airway pressure delivered by face mask and CPAPH in random order. Three gas flow rates (20-30-40 l/min and 30-45-60 l/min, respectively, for CPAPM and CPAPH) and four CPAP levels (0-5-10-15 cmH2O) were employed in a randomized sequence. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: In each patient we monitored airway pressure, esophageal pressure, expiratory flow, and inspiratory and expiratory CO2 concentration. End-expiratory lung volume changes from CPAP 0 were measured by inductance plethysmography. The application of increased levels of CPAP resulted in a significant increase in end-expiratory lung volume, similar for CPAPH and CPAPM. Inspiratory changes of airway pressure were comparable for the two CPAP modes. Inspiratory CO2 concentration was higher during CPAPH (significantly decreased at increased gas flow rates), compared to CPAPM. CONCLUSIONS:Continuous positive airway pressure delivered by head helmet is as effective as CPAPM in increasing end-expiratory lung volume and in compensating for airway pressure changes without the need of a reservoir bag. Higher gas flow rates are necessary to maintain a relatively low inspiratory CO2 concentration.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess selected physiological effects of non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure delivered by head helmet (CPAPH), a special interface device designed to completely contain the head of the patient, compared to face mask (CPAPM). DESIGN: Randomized physiological study. SETTING: University research laboratory. PATIENTS: Eight healthy volunteers. INTERVENTION: Continuous positive airway pressure delivered by face mask and CPAPH in random order. Three gas flow rates (20-30-40 l/min and 30-45-60 l/min, respectively, for CPAPM and CPAPH) and four CPAP levels (0-5-10-15 cmH2O) were employed in a randomized sequence. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: In each patient we monitored airway pressure, esophageal pressure, expiratory flow, and inspiratory and expiratory CO2 concentration. End-expiratory lung volume changes from CPAP 0 were measured by inductance plethysmography. The application of increased levels of CPAP resulted in a significant increase in end-expiratory lung volume, similar for CPAPH and CPAPM. Inspiratory changes of airway pressure were comparable for the two CPAP modes. Inspiratory CO2 concentration was higher during CPAPH (significantly decreased at increased gas flow rates), compared to CPAPM. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous positive airway pressure delivered by head helmet is as effective as CPAPM in increasing end-expiratory lung volume and in compensating for airway pressure changes without the need of a reservoir bag. Higher gas flow rates are necessary to maintain a relatively low inspiratory CO2 concentration.
Authors: M Antonelli; G Conti; M Rocco; M Bufi; R A De Blasi; G Vivino; A Gasparetto; G U Meduri Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-08-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Edward Abraham; Peter Andrews; Massimo Antonelli; Laurent Brochard; Christian Brun-Buisson; Geoffrey Dobb; Jean-Yves Fagon; Johan Groeneveld; Jordi Mancebo; Philipp Metnitz; Stefano Nava; Michael Pinsky; Peter Radermacher; Marco Ranieri; Christian Richard; Robert Tasker; Benoît Vallet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Nicolò Patroniti; Maurizio Saini; Alberto Zanella; Stefano Isgrò; Antonio Pesenti Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-11-18 Impact factor: 17.440
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: Manuela Milan; Alberto Zanella; Stefano Isgrò; Salua Abd El Aziz El Sayed Deab; Federico Magni; Antonio Pesenti; Nicolò Patroniti Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: C Olivieri; R Costa; G Spinazzola; G Ferrone; F Longhini; G Cammarota; G Conti; P Navalesi Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Francesco Mojoli; Giorgio A Iotti; Maddalena Gerletti; Carlo Lucarini; Antonio Braschi Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Onnen Moerer; Peter Herrmann; José Hinz; Paolo Severgnini; Edoardo Calderini; Michael Quintel; Paolo Pelosi Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-06-05 Impact factor: 9.097