Comparison Of Work Of Breathing Of In-Hospital And Transport Non-Invasive Ventilators - A Bench Study

Author(s):  
Roy Fischer ◽  
Andrew D. Bersten
Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Cresi ◽  
Federica Chiale ◽  
Elena Maggiora ◽  
Silvia Maria Borgione ◽  
Mattia Ferroglio ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been recommended as the best respiratory support for preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). However, the best NIV technique to be used as first intention in RDS management has not yet been established. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) may be synchronized (SNIPPV) or non-synchronized to the infant’s breathing efforts. The aim of the study is to evaluate the short-term effects of SNIPPV vs. NIPPV on the cardiorespiratory events, trying to identify the best ventilation modality for preterm infants at their first approach to NIV ventilation support. Methods An unmasked randomized crossover study with three treatment phases was designed. All newborn infants < 32 weeks of gestational age with RDS needing NIV ventilation as first intention or after extubation will be consecutively enrolled in the study and randomized to the NIPPV or SNIPPV arm. After stabilization, enrolled patients will be alternatively ventilated with two different techniques for two time frames of 4 h each. NIPPV and SNIPPV will be administered with the same ventilator and the same interface, maintaining continuous assisted ventilation without patient discomfort. During the whole duration of the study, the patient’s cardiorespiratory data and data from the ventilator will be simultaneously recorded using a polygraph connected to a computer. The primary outcome is the frequency of episodes of oxygen desaturation. Secondary outcomes are the number of the cardiorespiratory events, FiO2 necessity, newborn pain score evaluation, synchronization index, and thoracoabdominal asynchrony. The calculated sample size was of 30 patients. Discussion It is known that NIPPV produces a percentage of ineffective acts due to asynchronies between the ventilator and the infant’s breaths. On the other hand, an ineffective synchronization could increase work of breathing. Our hypothesis is that an efficient synchronization could reduce the respiratory work and increase the volume per minute exchanged without interfering with the natural respiratory rhythm of the patient with RDS. The results of this study will allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of the synchronization, demonstrating whether SNIPPV is the most effective non-invasive ventilation mode in preterm infants with RDS at their first approach to NIV ventilation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03289936. Registered on September 21, 2017.


Author(s):  
Snorri Donaldsson ◽  
Lars Naver ◽  
Baldvin Jonsson ◽  
Thomas Drevhammar

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has raised concern for healthcare workers getting infected via aerosol from non-invasive respiratory support of infants. Attaching filters that remove viral particles in air from the expiratory limb of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices should theoretically decrease the risk. However, adding filters to the expiratory limb could add to expiratory resistance and thereby increase the imposed work of breathing (WOB).ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects on imposed WOB when attaching filters to the expiratory limb of CPAP devices.MethodsTwo filters were tested on three CPAP systems at two levels of CPAP in a mechanical lung model. Main outcome was imposed WOB.ResultsThere was a minor increase in imposed WOB when attaching the filters. The differences between the two filters were small.ConclusionTo minimise contaminated aerosol generation during CPAP treatment, filters can be attached to expiratory tubing with only a minimal increase in imposed WOB in a non-humidified environment. Care has to be taken to avoid filter obstruction and replace filters as recommended.


2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose M. Alonso-Iñigo ◽  
María J. Fas ◽  
Alejandro Albert ◽  
Abel Dolz ◽  
José M. Carratalá ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Conti ◽  
Giorgia Spinazzola ◽  
Cesare Gregoretti ◽  
Giuliano Ferrone ◽  
Andrea Cortegiani ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Alberto Neder ◽  
Devin B. Phillips ◽  
Mathieu Marillier ◽  
Anne-Catherine Bernard ◽  
Danilo C. Berton ◽  
...  

Several shortcomings on cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) interpretation have shed a negative light on the test as a clinically useful tool. For instance, the reader should recognize patterns of dysfunction based on clusters of variables rather than relying on rigid interpretative algorithms. Correct display of key graphical data is of foremost relevance: prolixity and redundancy should be avoided. Submaximal dyspnea ratings should be plotted as a function of work rate (WR) and ventilatory demand. Increased work of breathing and/or obesity may normalize peak oxygen uptake (V̇O2) despite a low peak WR. Among the determinants of V̇O2, only heart rate is measured during non-invasive CPET. It follows that in the absence of findings suggestive of severe impairment in O2delivery, the boundaries between inactivity and early cardiovascular disease are blurred in individual subjects. A preserved breathing reserve should not be viewed as evidence that “the lungs” are not limiting the subject. In this context, measurements of dynamic inspiratory capacity are key to uncover abnormalities germane to exertional dyspnea. A low end-tidal partial pressure for carbon dioxide may indicate either increased “wasted” ventilation or alveolar hyperventilation; thus, direct measurements of arterial (or arterialized) PO2might be warranted. Differentiating a chaotic breathing pattern from the normal breath-by-breath noise might be complex if the plotted data are not adequately smoothed. A sober recognition of these limitations, associated with an interpretation report free from technicalities and convoluted terminology, is crucial to enhance the credibility of CPET in the eyes of the practicing physician.


2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-34
Author(s):  
Jose M. Alonso-Iñigo ◽  
María J. Fas ◽  
Alejandro Albert ◽  
Abel Dolz ◽  
Josèc) M. Carratalá ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document