PURPOSE: Because non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used, new devices, both ventilators and interfaces, have been continuously proposed for clinical use in recent years. To provide the clinicians with valuable information about ventilators and interfaces for NIV, several bench studies evaluating and comparing the performance of NIV devices have been concomitantly published, which may influence the choice in equipment acquisition. As these comparisons, however, may be problematic and sometimes lacking in consistency, in the present article we review and discuss those technical aspects that may explain discrepancies. METHODS: Studies concerning bench evaluations of devices for NIV were reviewed, focusing on some specific technical aspects: lung models and simulation of inspiratory demand and effort, mechanical properties of the virtual respiratory system, generation and quantification of air leaks, ventilator modes and settings, assessment of the interface-ventilator unit performance. RESULTS: The impact of the use of different test lung models is not clear and warrants elucidation; standard references for simulated demand and effort, mode of generation and extent of air leaks, resistance and compliance of the virtual respiratory system, and ventilator settings are lacking; the criteria for assessment of inspiratory trigger function, inspiration-to-expiration (I:E) cycling, and pressurization rate vary among studies; finally, the terminology utilized is inconsistent, which may also lead to confusion. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent experimental settings, uniform terminology, and standard measurement criteria are deemed to be useful to enhance bench assessment of characteristics and comparison of performance of ventilators and interfaces for NIV.
PURPOSE: Because non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used, new devices, both ventilators and interfaces, have been continuously proposed for clinical use in recent years. To provide the clinicians with valuable information about ventilators and interfaces for NIV, several bench studies evaluating and comparing the performance of NIV devices have been concomitantly published, which may influence the choice in equipment acquisition. As these comparisons, however, may be problematic and sometimes lacking in consistency, in the present article we review and discuss those technical aspects that may explain discrepancies. METHODS: Studies concerning bench evaluations of devices for NIV were reviewed, focusing on some specific technical aspects: lung models and simulation of inspiratory demand and effort, mechanical properties of the virtual respiratory system, generation and quantification of air leaks, ventilator modes and settings, assessment of the interface-ventilator unit performance. RESULTS: The impact of the use of different test lung models is not clear and warrants elucidation; standard references for simulated demand and effort, mode of generation and extent of air leaks, resistance and compliance of the virtual respiratory system, and ventilator settings are lacking; the criteria for assessment of inspiratory trigger function, inspiration-to-expiration (I:E) cycling, and pressurization rate vary among studies; finally, the terminology utilized is inconsistent, which may also lead to confusion. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent experimental settings, uniform terminology, and standard measurement criteria are deemed to be useful to enhance bench assessment of characteristics and comparison of performance of ventilators and interfaces for NIV.
Authors: P Aslanian; S El Atrous; D Isabey; E Valente; D Corsi; A Harf; F Lemaire; L Brochard Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 21.405
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: Carmen Sílvia Valente Barbas; Alexandre Marini Isola; Augusto Manoel de Carvalho Farias; Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti; Ana Maria Casati Gama; Antonio Carlos Magalhães Duarte; Arthur Vianna; Ary Serpa Neto; Bruno de Arruda Bravim; Bruno do Valle Pinheiro; Bruno Franco Mazza; Carlos Roberto Ribeiro de Carvalho; Carlos Toufen Júnior; Cid Marcos Nascimento David; Corine Taniguchi; Débora Dutra da Silveira Mazza; Desanka Dragosavac; Diogo Oliveira Toledo; Eduardo Leite Costa; Eliana Bernardete Caser; Eliezer Silva; Fabio Ferreira Amorim; Felipe Saddy; Filomena Regina Barbosa Gomes Galas; Gisele Sampaio Silva; Gustavo Faissol Janot de Matos; João Claudio Emmerich; Jorge Luis Dos Santos Valiatti; José Mario Meira Teles; Josué Almeida Victorino; Juliana Carvalho Ferreira; Luciana Passuello do Vale Prodomo; Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar; Luiz Cláudio Martins; Luiz Marcelo Sá Malbouisson; Mara Ambrosina de Oliveira Vargas; Marco Antonio Soares Reis; Marcelo Brito Passos Amato; Marcelo Alcântara Holanda; Marcelo Park; Marcia Jacomelli; Marcos Tavares; Marta Cristina Paulette Damasceno; Murillo Santucci César Assunção; Moyzes Pinto Coelho Duarte Damasceno; Nazah Cherif Mohamad Youssef; Paulo José Zimmermann Teixeira; Pedro Caruso; Péricles Almeida Delfino Duarte; Octavio Messeder; Raquel Caserta Eid; Ricardo Goulart Rodrigues; Rodrigo Francisco de Jesus; Ronaldo Adib Kairalla; Sandra Justino; Sérgio Nogueira Nemer; Simone Barbosa Romero; Verônica Moreira Amado Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva Date: 2014 Apr-Jun
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Marc Bonten; Maurizio Cecconi; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; J R Curtis; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Salvatore M Maggiore; Jordi Mancebo; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Patricia Rocco; Jean-François Timsit; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 17.440