Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
New versus Conventional Helmet for Delivering Noninvasive Ventilation: A Physiologic, Crossover Randomized Study in Critically Ill Patients.
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Olivieri, Carlo Longhini, Federico Cena, Tiziana Cammarota, Gianmaria Vaschetto, Rosanna R. Messina, Antonio Berni, Paola Magnani, Corrado Corte, Francesco Della Navalesi, Paolo |
| Copyright Year | 2016 |
| Abstract | BACKGROUND The helmet is a well-tolerated interface for noninvasive ventilation, although it is associated with poor patient-ventilator interaction. A new helmet (NH) has proven to attenuate this limitation of the standard helmet (SH) in both bench study and healthy volunteers. The authors compared a NH and a SH in intensive care unit patients receiving noninvasive ventilation for prevention of postextubation respiratory failure; both helmets were also compared with the endotracheal tube in place before extubation. METHODS Fourteen patients underwent 30-min trials in pressure support during invasive ventilation and then with a SH and a NH in a random order. The authors measured comfort, triggering delays, rates of pressurization (airway pressure-time product [PTP] of the first 300 [PTP(300-index)] and 500 [PTP(500-index)] ms from the onset of effort, and the first 200 ms from the onset of insufflation [PTP200]), time of synchrony between effort and assistance (Time(synch)/Ti(neu)), respiratory drive and frequency, arterial blood gases (ABGs), and rate of asynchrony. RESULTS Compared with SH, NH improved comfort (5.5 [5.0 to 6.0] vs. 8.0 [7.8 to 8.0]), respectively, P < 0.001), inspiratory trigger delay (0.31 [0.22 to 0.43] vs. 0.25 [0.18 to 0.31] s, P = 0.007), and pressurization (PTP(300-index): 0.8 [0.1 to 1.8] vs. 2.7 [7.1 to 10.0]%; PTP(500-index): 4.8 [2.5 to 9.9] vs. 27.3 [16.2 to 34.8]%; PTP200: 13.6 [10.1 to 19.6] vs. 30.4 [24.9 to 38.4] cm H2O/s, P < 0.01 for all comparisons) and Time(synch)/Ti(neu) (0.64 [0.48 to 0.72] vs. 0.71 [0.61 to 0.81], P = 0.007). Respiratory drive and frequency, ABGs, and rate of asynchrony were not different between helmets. Endotracheal tube outperformed both helmets with respect to all variables, except for respiratory rate, ABGs, and asynchronies. CONCLUSIONS Compared with a SH, a NH improved comfort and patient-ventilator interaction. |
| Starting Page | 203 |
| Ending Page | 209 |
| Page Count | 7 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://anesthesiology.pubs.asahq.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jasa/934773/20160100.0-00024.pdf |
| PubMed reference number | 26528774v1 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000000910 |
| DOI | 10.1097/aln.0000000000000910 |
| Journal | Anesthesiology |
| Volume Number | 124 |
| Issue Number | 1 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Subject Keyword | Critical Illness ERBB2 protein, human Gases Inspiration function Insufflation Noninvasive Ventilation Patients Respiration Respiratory Insufficiency Tracheal Extubation Ventilator - respiratory equipment Water intensive care unit |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
