PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of delivering a mixture of helium and oxygen gas (He–O2) in spontaneous ventilation. Three high oxygen flow reservoir masks were tested: the Heliox21, specifically designed for helium; the Hi-Ox80 mask, with an inspiratory and an expiratory valve; and a standard high-concentration face mask. METHODS: This prospective randomized crossover study was performed in six healthy volunteers in a laboratory setting. Volunteers breathed a mixture of 78% He/22% O2 through each of the masks under two different breathing conditions (rest and hyperventilation: minute ventilation of 14.9 ± 6.1 and 26.7 ± 8.7 L min(−1), respectively) and four different He–O2 flow rates (7, 10, 12, and 15 L min(−1)). RESULTS: A nasopharyngeal catheter was used to estimate He pharyngeal concentration (Fp [He]) in the airways in order to determine the percentage of contamination with room air (% air cont) at end-expiration. Under all testing conditions, the Hi-Ox80 mask presented a significantly lower % air cont. During resting breathing pattern, a Fp [He] higher than 50% was achieved in 54% of the tests performed with the Hi-Ox80 mask compared to 29% for the Heliox21 mask and only 17% for the standard mask. At hyperventilation, a Fp [He] higher than 50% was achieved in 17% of the tests performed with the Hi-Ox mask compared to 4% for the other two masks. CONCLUSION: He–O2 administration via the usual high-concentration reservoir masks results in significant dilution by room air. The Hi-Ox80 mask minimized room air contamination and much more frequently achieved a pharyngeal He concentration higher than 50%.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of delivering a mixture of helium and oxygen gas (He–O2) in spontaneous ventilation. Three high oxygen flow reservoir masks were tested: the Heliox21, specifically designed for helium; the Hi-Ox80 mask, with an inspiratory and an expiratory valve; and a standard high-concentration face mask. METHODS: This prospective randomized crossover study was performed in six healthy volunteers in a laboratory setting. Volunteers breathed a mixture of 78% He/22% O2 through each of the masks under two different breathing conditions (rest and hyperventilation: minute ventilation of 14.9 ± 6.1 and 26.7 ± 8.7 L min(−1), respectively) and four different He–O2 flow rates (7, 10, 12, and 15 L min(−1)). RESULTS: A nasopharyngeal catheter was used to estimate He pharyngeal concentration (Fp [He]) in the airways in order to determine the percentage of contamination with room air (% air cont) at end-expiration. Under all testing conditions, the Hi-Ox80 mask presented a significantly lower % air cont. During resting breathing pattern, a Fp [He] higher than 50% was achieved in 54% of the tests performed with the Hi-Ox80 mask compared to 29% for the Heliox21 mask and only 17% for the standard mask. At hyperventilation, a Fp [He] higher than 50% was achieved in 17% of the tests performed with the Hi-Ox mask compared to 4% for the other two masks. CONCLUSION:He–O2 administration via the usual high-concentration reservoir masks results in significant dilution by room air. The Hi-Ox80 mask minimized room air contamination and much more frequently achieved a pharyngeal He concentration higher than 50%.
Authors: Dean R Hess; James B Fink; Shekhar T Venkataraman; In K Kim; Timothy R Myers; Benoit D Tano Journal: Respir Care Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: John P Kress; Imre Noth; Brian K Gehlbach; Nitin Barman; Anne S Pohlman; Annette Miller; Sherwin Morgan; Jesse B Hall Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: S Jaber; R Fodil; A Carlucci; M Boussarsar; J Pigeot; F Lemaire; A Harf; F Lofaso; D Isabey; L Brochard Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Thomas D A Standley; Helen L Smith; Liam J Brennan; Ingrid A Wilkins; Peter G Bradley; Casiano Barrera Groba; Andrew J Davey; David K Menon; Daniel W Wheeler Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-03-19 Impact factor: 17.440