Dataset Information

High efficiency particulate air filters and heat & moisture exchanger filters increase positive end-expiratory pressure in helmet continuous positive airway pressure: A bench-top study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specific filters (i.e. High Efficiency Particulate Air filter: HEPA; Heat & Moisture Exchanger Filter: HMEF) were used to prevent Sars-CoV2 environmental dispersion and were connected to the CPAP helmet. However, HEPA and HMEF filters may act as resistors to expiratory gas flow and increase the levels of pressure within the hood.

Methods

In a bench-top study, we investigated the levels of airway pressure generated by different HEPA and HMEF filters connected to the CPAP helmet in the absence of a Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) valve and with two levels of PEEP (5 and 10 cmH₂O). All steps were performed using 3 increasing levels of gas flow (60, 80, 100 L/min).

Results

The use of 8 different commercially available filters significantly increased the pressure within the hood of the CPAP helmet with or without the use of PEEP valves. On average, the increase of pressure above the set PEEP ranged from 3 cmH₂O to 10 cmH₂O across gas flow rates of 60 to 100 L/min. The measure of airway pressure was highly correlated between the laboratory pressure transducer and the Helmet manometer. Bias with 95% Confidence Interval of Bias between the devices was 0.7 (-2.06; 0.66) cmH₂O.

Conclusions

The use of HEPA and HMEF filters placed before the PEEP valve at the expiratory port of the CPAP helmet significantly increase the levels of airway pressure compared to the set level of PEEP. The manometer can detect accurately the airway pressure in the presence of HEPA and HMEF filters in the helmet CPAP and its use should considered.

SUBMITTER: Rezoagli E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9252871 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Airway clearance techniques include positive expiratory pressure, commonly used in our clinical practice, and a recently introduced temporary positive expiratory pressure device called UNIKO®. It is unclear which one provides the best benefit to patients.The aim of this observational 4-year study was to retrospectively compare the efficacy of and specific indications for temporary positive expiratory pressure compared to positive expiratory pressure in a standard rehabilitation program.We retrospectively collected data from 162 subjects (107 males, mean age 70±9 years, 97 with primary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 65 with bronchiectasis), 51 treated with temporary positive expiratory pressure and 111 with positive expiratory pressure.Subjects showed significant improvement in ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (p<0.001), forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in one second, peak expiratory flow, arterial oxygen saturation, and partial pressure arterial oxygen with no significant difference between positive expiratory pressure and temporary positive expiratory pressure groups apart from forced expiratory flow, which increased only in the positive expiratory pressure group. Evaluating specific subgroups, temporary positive expiratory pressure was more effective than positive expiratory pressure in improving gas transfer in subjects with emphysema and in those on oxygen therapy, as the effective supplement oxygen flow decreased significantly (p=0.034 and 0.046 respectively for temporary positive expiratory pressure vs. positive expiratory pressure). In subjects on mechanical ventilation, positive expiratory pressure was superior to temporary positive expiratory pressure in increasing forced expiratory flow (p=0.018).The physiological parameters of both groups improved significantly and similarly. Subgroup analysis suggests that temporary positive expiratory pressure could provide some advantage to subjects with emphysema and those on oxygen therapy, while positive expiratory pressure would benefit patients on mechanical ventilation. Randomized clinical trials are necessary to confirm our preliminary results indicating that different subgroups/phenotypes can benefit more from one type of treatment.

Project description:BackgroundPositive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been demonstrated to decrease ventilator-induced lung injury in patients under mechanical ventilation (MV) for acute respiratory failure. Recently, some studies have proposed some beneficial effects of PEEP in ventilated patients without lung injury. The influence of PEEP on respiratory mechanics in children is not well known. Our aim was to determine the effects on respiratory mechanics of setting PEEP at 5 cmH2O in anesthetized healthy children.MethodsPatients younger than 15 years old without history of lung injury scheduled for elective surgery gave informed consent and were enrolled in the study. After usual care for general anesthesia, patients were placed on volume controlled MV. Two sets of respiratory mechanics studies were performed using inspiratory and expiratory breath hold, with PEEP 0 and 5 cmH2O. The maximum inspiratory and expiratory flow (QI and QE) as well as peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), plateau pressure (PPL) and total PEEP (tPEEP) were measured. Respiratory system compliance (CRS), inspiratory and expiratory resistances (RawI and RawE) and time constants (KTI and KTE) were calculated. Data were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR). Wilcoxon sign test and Spearman's analysis were used. Significance was set at P < 0.05.ResultsWe included 30 patients, median age 39 (15-61.3) months old, 60% male. When PEEP increased, PIP increased from 12 (11,14) to 15.5 (14,18), and CRS increased from 0.9 (0.9,1.2) to 1.2 (0.9,1.4) mL·kg- 1·cmH2O- 1; additionally, when PEEP increased, driving pressure decreased from 6.8 (5.9,8.1) to 5.8 (4.7,7.1) cmH2O, and QE decreased from 13.8 (11.8,18.7) to 11.7 (9.1,13.5) L·min- 1 (all P < 0.01). There were no significant changes in resistance and QI.ConclusionsAnalysis of respiratory mechanics in anesthetized healthy children shows that PEEP at 5 cmH2O places the respiratory system in a better position in the P/V curve. A better understanding of lung mechanics may lead to changes in the traditional ventilatory approach, limiting injury associated with MV.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In ARDS patients, changes in respiratory mechanical properties and ventilatory settings can cause incomplete lung deflation at end-expiration. Both can promote dynamic hyperinflation and intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The aim of this study was to investigate, in a large population of ARDS patients, the presence of intrinsic PEEP, possible associated factors (patients' characteristics and ventilator settings), and the effects of two different external PEEP levels on the intrinsic PEEP. METHODS:We made a secondary analysis of published data. Patients were ventilated with a tidal volume of 6-8?mL/kg of predicted body weight, sedated, and paralyzed. After a recruitment maneuver, a PEEP trial was run at 5 and 15 cmH2O, and partitioned mechanics measurements were collected after 20?min of stabilization. Lung computed tomography scans were taken at 5 and 45 cmH2O. Patients were classified into two groups according to whether or not they had intrinsic PEEP at the end of an expiratory pause. RESULTS:We enrolled 217 sedated, paralyzed patients: 87 (40%) had intrinsic PEEP with a median of 1.1 [1.0-2.3] cmH2O at 5 cmH2O of PEEP. The intrinsic PEEP significantly decreased with higher PEEP (1.1 [1.0-2.3] vs 0.6 [0.0-1.0] cmH2O; p?<?0.001). The applied tidal volume was significantly lower (480 [430-540] vs 520 [445-600] mL at 5 cmH2O of PEEP; 480 [430-540] vs 510 [430-590] mL at 15 cmH2O) in patients with intrinsic PEEP, while the respiratory rate was significantly higher (18 [15-20] vs 15 [13-19] bpm at 5 cmH2O of PEEP; 18 [15-20] vs 15 [13-19] bpm at 15 cmH2O). At both PEEP levels, the total airway resistance and compliance of the respiratory system were not different in patients with and without intrinsic PEEP. The total lung gas volume and lung recruitability were also not different between patients with and without intrinsic PEEP (respectively 961 [701-1535] vs 973 [659-1433] mL and 15 [0-32] % vs 22 [0-36] %). CONCLUSIONS:In sedated, paralyzed ARDS patients without a known obstructive disease, the amount of intrinsic PEEP during lung-protective ventilation is negligible and does not influence respiratory mechanical properties.