OBJECTIVE: To test the effects on mechanical performance of helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) of an optimized set-up concerning the ventilator settings, the ventilator circuit and the helmet itself. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a bench study, helmet NIV was applied to a physical model. Pressurization and depressurization rates and minute ventilation (MV) were measured under 24 conditions including pressure support of 10 or 20 cm H(2)O, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 or 10 cm H(2)O, ventilator circuit with "high", "intermediate" or "low" resistance, and cushion deflated or inflated. In a clinical study pressurization and depressurization rates, MV and patient-ventilator interactions were compared in six patients with acute respiratory failure during conventional versus an "optimized" set-up (PEEP increased to 10 cm H(2)O, low resistance circuit and cushion inflated). RESULTS: In the bench study, all adjustments simultaneously applied (increased PEEP, inflated cushion and low resistance circuit) increased pressurization rate (46.7 ± 2.8 vs. 28.3 ± 0.6 %, p < 0.05), depressurization rate (82.9 ± 1.9 vs. 59.8 ± 1.1 %, p ≤ 0.05) and patient MV (8.5 ± 3.2 vs. 7.4 ± 2.8 l/min, p < 0.05), and decreased leaks (17.4 ± 6.0 vs. 33.6 ± 6.0 %, p < 0.05) compared to the basal set-up. In the clinical study, the optimized set-up increased pressurization rate (51.0 ± 3.5 vs. 30.8 ± 6.9 %, p < 0.002), depressurization rate (48.2 ± 3.3 vs. 34.2 ± 4.6 %, p < 0.0001) and total MV (27.7 ± 7.0 vs. 24.6 ± 6.9 l/min, p < 0.02), and decreased ineffective efforts (3.5 ± 5.4 vs. 20.3 ± 12.4 %, p < 0.0001) and inspiratory delay (243 ± 109 vs. 461 ± 181 ms, p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: An optimized set-up for helmet NIV that limits device compliance and ventilator circuit resistance as much as possible is highly effective in improving pressure support delivery and patient-ventilator interaction.
OBJECTIVE: To test the effects on mechanical performance of helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) of an optimized set-up concerning the ventilator settings, the ventilator circuit and the helmet itself. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a bench study, helmet NIV was applied to a physical model. Pressurization and depressurization rates and minute ventilation (MV) were measured under 24 conditions including pressure support of 10 or 20 cm H(2)O, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 or 10 cm H(2)O, ventilator circuit with "high", "intermediate" or "low" resistance, and cushion deflated or inflated. In a clinical study pressurization and depressurization rates, MV and patient-ventilator interactions were compared in six patients with acute respiratory failure during conventional versus an "optimized" set-up (PEEP increased to 10 cm H(2)O, low resistance circuit and cushion inflated). RESULTS: In the bench study, all adjustments simultaneously applied (increased PEEP, inflated cushion and low resistance circuit) increased pressurization rate (46.7 ± 2.8 vs. 28.3 ± 0.6 %, p < 0.05), depressurization rate (82.9 ± 1.9 vs. 59.8 ± 1.1 %, p ≤ 0.05) and patient MV (8.5 ± 3.2 vs. 7.4 ± 2.8 l/min, p < 0.05), and decreased leaks (17.4 ± 6.0 vs. 33.6 ± 6.0 %, p < 0.05) compared to the basal set-up. In the clinical study, the optimized set-up increased pressurization rate (51.0 ± 3.5 vs. 30.8 ± 6.9 %, p < 0.002), depressurization rate (48.2 ± 3.3 vs. 34.2 ± 4.6 %, p < 0.0001) and total MV (27.7 ± 7.0 vs. 24.6 ± 6.9 l/min, p < 0.02), and decreased ineffective efforts (3.5 ± 5.4 vs. 20.3 ± 12.4 %, p < 0.0001) and inspiratory delay (243 ± 109 vs. 461 ± 181 ms, p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: An optimized set-up for helmet NIV that limits device compliance and ventilator circuit resistance as much as possible is highly effective in improving pressure support delivery and patient-ventilator interaction.
Authors: G P Schettino; M R Tucci; R Sousa; C S Valente Barbas; M B Passos Amato; C R Carvalho Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2001-11-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Fabrizio Racca; Lorenzo Appendini; Cesare Gregoretti; Elisa Stra; Antonio Patessio; Claudio F Donner; V Marco Ranieri Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2005-06-16
Authors: Paolo Navalesi; Roberta Costa; Piero Ceriana; Annalisa Carlucci; George Prinianakis; Massimo Antonelli; Giorgio Conti; Stefano Nava Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-10-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Nicolò Patroniti; Giuseppe Foti; Annamaria Manfio; Anna Coppo; Giacomo Bellani; Antonio Pesenti Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-08-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Elie Azoulay; Giuseppe Citerio; Jan Bakker; Matteo Bassetti; Dominique Benoit; Maurizio Cecconi; J Randall Curtis; Glenn Hernandez; Margaret Herridge; Samir Jaber; Michael Joannidis; Laurent Papazian; Mark Peters; Pierre Singer; Martin Smith; Marcio Soares; Antoni Torres; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Jean-François Timsit Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Melania Cesarano; Domenico Luca Grieco; Teresa Michi; Laveena Munshi; Luca S Menga; Luca Delle Cese; Ersilia Ruggiero; Tommaso Rosà; Daniele Natalini; Michael C Sklar; Salvatore L Cutuli; Filippo Bongiovanni; Gennaro De Pascale; Bruno L Ferreyro; Ewan C Goligher; Massimo Antonelli Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 10.318
Authors: Domenico Luca Grieco; Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore; Oriol Roca; Elena Spinelli; Bhakti K Patel; Arnaud W Thille; Carmen Sílvia V Barbas; Marina Garcia de Acilu; Salvatore Lucio Cutuli; Filippo Bongiovanni; Marcelo Amato; Jean-Pierre Frat; Tommaso Mauri; John P Kress; Jordi Mancebo; Massimo Antonelli Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 17.440