Claudia Brusasco1, Francesco Corradi2, Alessandra De Ferrari3, Lorenzo Ball3, Robert M Kacmarek4, Paolo Pelosi3. 1. Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche e Diagnostiche Integrate, Sezione Anestesia e Rianimazione, Università degli Studi di Genova, Genova, Italy. claudia.brusasco@gmail.com. 2. SC Anestesia e Rianimazione, EO Ospedali Galliera, Genova, Italy. 3. Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche e Diagnostiche Integrate, Sezione Anestesia e Rianimazione, Università degli Studi di Genova, Genova, Italy. Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Martino-Istituto Scientifico Tumori, Genova, Italy. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care and the Department of Respiratory Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CPAP is frequently used in prehospital and emergency settings. An air-flow output minimum of 60 L/min and a constant positive pressure are 2 important features for a successful CPAP device. Unlike hospital CPAP devices, which require electricity, CPAP devices for ambulance use need only an oxygen source to function. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare on a bench model the performance of 3 orofacial mask devices (Ventumask, EasyVent, and Boussignac CPAP system) and 2 helmets (Ventukit and EVE Coulisse) used to apply CPAP in the prehospital setting. METHODS: A static test evaluated air-flow output, positive pressure applied, and FIO2 delivered by each device. A dynamic test assessed airway pressure stability during simulated ventilation. Efficiency of devices was compared based on oxygen flow needed to generate a minimum air flow of 60 L/min at each CPAP setting. RESULTS: The EasyVent and EVE Coulisse devices delivered significantly higher mean air-flow outputs compared with the Ventumask and Ventukit under all CPAP conditions tested. The Boussignac CPAP system never reached an air-flow output of 60 L/min. The EasyVent had significantly lower pressure excursion than the Ventumask at all CPAP levels, and the EVE Coulisse had lower pressure excursion than the Ventukit at 5, 15, and 20 cm H2O, whereas at 10 cm H2O, no significant difference was observed between the 2 devices. Estimated oxygen consumption was lower for the EasyVent and EVE Coulisse compared with the Ventumask and Ventukit. CONCLUSIONS: Air-flow output, pressure applied, FIO2 delivered, device oxygen consumption, and ability to maintain air flow at 60 L/min differed significantly among the CPAP devices tested. Only the EasyVent and EVE Coulisse achieved the required minimum level of air-flow output needed to ensure an effective therapy under all CPAP conditions.
BACKGROUND:CPAP is frequently used in prehospital and emergency settings. An air-flow output minimum of 60 L/min and a constant positive pressure are 2 important features for a successful CPAP device. Unlike hospital CPAP devices, which require electricity, CPAP devices for ambulance use need only an oxygen source to function. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare on a bench model the performance of 3 orofacial mask devices (Ventumask, EasyVent, and Boussignac CPAP system) and 2 helmets (Ventukit and EVE Coulisse) used to apply CPAP in the prehospital setting. METHODS: A static test evaluated air-flow output, positive pressure applied, and FIO2 delivered by each device. A dynamic test assessed airway pressure stability during simulated ventilation. Efficiency of devices was compared based on oxygen flow needed to generate a minimum air flow of 60 L/min at each CPAP setting. RESULTS: The EasyVent and EVE Coulisse devices delivered significantly higher mean air-flow outputs compared with the Ventumask and Ventukit under all CPAP conditions tested. The Boussignac CPAP system never reached an air-flow output of 60 L/min. The EasyVent had significantly lower pressure excursion than the Ventumask at all CPAP levels, and the EVE Coulisse had lower pressure excursion than the Ventukit at 5, 15, and 20 cm H2O, whereas at 10 cm H2O, no significant difference was observed between the 2 devices. Estimated oxygen consumption was lower for the EasyVent and EVE Coulisse compared with the Ventumask and Ventukit. CONCLUSIONS: Air-flow output, pressure applied, FIO2 delivered, device oxygen consumption, and ability to maintain air flow at 60 L/min differed significantly among the CPAP devices tested. Only the EasyVent and EVE Coulisse achieved the required minimum level of air-flow output needed to ensure an effective therapy under all CPAP conditions.
Authors: Pete Culmer; W Davis Birch; I Waters; A Keeling; C Osnes; D Jones; G de Boer; R Hetherington; S Ashton; M Latham; T Beacon; T Royston; R Miller; A Littlejohns; J Parmar; Tom Lawton; S Murdoch; D Brettle; R Musasizi; G Nampiina; E Namulema; N Kapur Journal: Front Med Technol Date: 2021-08-24