INTRODUCTION: No clear recommendation exists concerning humidification during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high flow CPAP, and few hygrometric data are available. METHODS: We measured hygrometry during NIV delivered to healthy subjects with different humidification strategies: heated humidifier (HH), heat and moisture exchanger, (HME) or no humidification (NoH). For each strategy, a turbine and an ICU ventilator were used with different FiO(2) settings, with and without leaks. During CPAP, two different HH and NoH were tested. Inspired gases hygrometry was measured, and comfort was assessed. On a bench, we also assessed the impact of ambient air temperature, ventilator temperature and minute ventilation on HH performances (with NIV settings). RESULTS: During NIV, with NoH, gas humidity was very low when an ICU ventilator was used (5 mgH(2)O/l), but equivalent to ambient air hygrometry with a turbine ventilator at minimal FiO(2) (13 mgH(2)O/l). HME and HH had comparable performances (25-30 mgH(2)O/l), but HME's effectiveness was reduced with leaks (15 mgH(2)O/l). HH performances were reduced by elevated ambient air and ventilator output temperatures. During CPAP, dry gases (5 mgH(2)O/l) were less tolerated than humidified gases. Gases humidified at 15 or 30 mgH(2)O/l were equally tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study provides data on the level of humidity delivered with different humidification strategies during NIV and CPAP. HH and HME provide gas with the highest water content. Comfort data suggest that levels above 15 mgH(2)O/l are well tolerated. In favorable conditions, HH and HMEs are capable of providing such values, even in the presence of leaks.
INTRODUCTION: No clear recommendation exists concerning humidification during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high flow CPAP, and few hygrometric data are available. METHODS: We measured hygrometry during NIV delivered to healthy subjects with different humidification strategies: heated humidifier (HH), heat and moisture exchanger, (HME) or no humidification (NoH). For each strategy, a turbine and an ICU ventilator were used with different FiO(2) settings, with and without leaks. During CPAP, two different HH and NoH were tested. Inspired gases hygrometry was measured, and comfort was assessed. On a bench, we also assessed the impact of ambient air temperature, ventilator temperature and minute ventilation on HH performances (with NIV settings). RESULTS: During NIV, with NoH, gas humidity was very low when an ICU ventilator was used (5 mgH(2)O/l), but equivalent to ambient air hygrometry with a turbine ventilator at minimal FiO(2) (13 mgH(2)O/l). HME and HH had comparable performances (25-30 mgH(2)O/l), but HME's effectiveness was reduced with leaks (15 mgH(2)O/l). HH performances were reduced by elevated ambient air and ventilator output temperatures. During CPAP, dry gases (5 mgH(2)O/l) were less tolerated than humidified gases. Gases humidified at 15 or 30 mgH(2)O/l were equally tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study provides data on the level of humidity delivered with different humidification strategies during NIV and CPAP. HH and HME provide gas with the highest water content. Comfort data suggest that levels above 15 mgH(2)O/l are well tolerated. In favorable conditions, HH and HMEs are capable of providing such values, even in the presence of leaks.
Authors: François Lellouche; Salvatore M Maggiore; Nicolas Deye; Solenne Taillé; Jérôme Pigeot; Alain Harf; Laurent Brochard Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2002-10-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: L R Cabanes; S N Weber; R Matran; J Regnard; M O Richard; M E Degeorges; A Lockhart Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-05-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: François Lellouche; Solenne Taillé; Salvatore M Maggiore; Siham Qader; Erwan L'her; Nicolas Deye; Laurent Brochard Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2004-07-21 Impact factor: 21.405
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: Hendrik S Fischer; Charles C Roehr; Hans Proquitté; Hannes Hammer; Roland R Wauer; Gerd Schmalisch Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: A Cortegiani; V Russotto; M Antonelli; E Azoulay; A Carlucci; G Conti; A Demoule; M Ferrer; N S Hill; S Jaber; P Navalesi; P Pelosi; R Scala; C Gregoretti Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: François Lellouche; E L'Her; F Abroug; N Deye; P O Rodriguez; A Rabbat; S Jaber; M Fartoukh; G Conti; C Cracco; J C Richard; J D Ricard; H Mal; H Mentec; F Loisel; J C Lacherade; S Taillé; L Brochard Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 17.440