Under-humidification and over-humidification during moderate induced hypothermia with usual devices

Effect of inspired gas temperature on lung mechanics and gas exchange in neonates in normothermia or therapeutic hypothermia

BACKGROUND

Respiratory critical care guidelines suggest heating the air/oxygen mixture but do not recommend a specific temperature target. We aimed to clarify if the inspired gas temperature influences lung mechanics and gas exchange in intubated patients treated with whole body hypothermia (WBH) or normothermia (NT).

METHODS

Prospective cohort study enrolling neonates ventilated for perinatal asphyxia resuscitation (no lung disease) or acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Patients were divided between those ventilated in NT or WBH. Compliance (Cdyn), airway resistances (Raw), oxygenation index (OI), PaO2/FiO2, A-a gradient, a/A ratio, estimated alveolar dead space (VDalv), ventilatory index (VI) and CO2 production (VCO2) were registered at the study beginning (inspired gas at 37°C). Then, gas temperature was decreased (32 °C) and variables were recorded again after 1 and 3 h. Data were analysed with univariate and multivariate repeated measures-ANOVA.

RESULTS

Cdyn, Raw, OI, PaO2/FiO2, A-a gradient, a/A ratio, VDalv, VI and VCO2 are similar between WBH and NT at any timepoint (between-subjects effect); these results do not change adjusting for the presence of respiratory failure. When this is considered in multivariate ANOVA (within-subjects effect), Cdyn (p = 0.016), Raw (p = 0.034) and VDalv (p < 0.001) were worse in patients with respiratory failure than in those without lung disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Decreasing the gas temperature from 37 °C to 32 °C for 3 h does not change lung mechanics and gas exchange, neither in neonates with, nor in those without respiratory failure and in those treated in NT or WBH. These findings fill a knowledge gap regarding the effect of inspired gas temperature during WBH: they may inform future respiratory critical care guidelines.

Humidification and heating of inhaled gas in patients with artificial airway. A narrative review

Instrumentation of the airways in critical patients (endotracheal tube or tracheostomy cannula) prevents them from performing their function of humidify and heating the inhaled gas. In addition, the administration of cold and dry medical gases and the high flows that patients experience during invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation generate an even worse condition. For this reason, a device for gas conditioning is needed, even in short-term treatments, to avoid potential damage to the structure and function of the respiratory epithelium. In the field of intensive therapy, the use of heat and moisture exchangers is common for this purpose, as is the use of active humidification systems. Acquiring knowledge about technical specifications and the advantages and disadvantages of each device is needed for proper use since the conditioning of inspired gases is a key intervention in patients with artificial airway and has become routine care. Incorrect selection or inappropriate configuration of a device can have a negative impact on clinical outcomes. The members of the Capítulo de Kinesiología Intensivista of the Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva conducted a narrative review aiming to show the available evidence regarding conditioning of inhaled gas in patients with artificial airways, going into detail on concepts related to the working principles of each one.

Heat and moisture exchangers versus heated humidifiers for mechanically ventilated adults and children

BACKGROUND

Invasive ventilation is used to assist or replace breathing when a person is unable to breathe adequately on their own. Because the upper airway is bypassed during mechanical ventilation, the respiratory system is no longer able to warm and moisten inhaled gases, potentially causing additional breathing problems in people who already require assisted breathing. To prevent these problems, gases are artificially warmed and humidified. There are two main forms of humidification, heat and moisture exchangers (HME) or heated humidifiers (HH). Both are associated with potential benefits and advantages but it is unclear whether HME or HH are more effective in preventing some of the negative outcomes associated with mechanical ventilation. This review was originally published in 2010 and updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether heat and moisture exchangers or heated humidifiers are more effective in preventing complications in people receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and to identify whether the age group of participants, length of humidification, type of HME, and ventilation delivered through a tracheostomy had an effect on these findings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL up to May 2017 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. There were no language limitations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing HMEs to HHs in adults and children receiving invasive ventilation. We included randomized cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the quality of each study and extracted the relevant data. Where possible, we analysed data through meta-analysis. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI or standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for parallel studies. For cross-over trials, we calculated the MD and 95% CI using correlation estimates to correct for paired analyses. We aimed to conduct subgroup analyses based on the age group of participants, how long they received humidification, type of HME and whether ventilation was delivered through a tracheostomy. We also conducted sensitivity analysis to identify whether the quality of trials had an effect on meta-analytic findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 trials with 2848 participants; 26 studies were parallel-group design (2725 participants) and eight used a cross-over design (123 participants). Only three included studies reported data for infants or children. Two further studies (76 participants) are awaiting classification.There was no overall statistical difference in artificial airway occlusion (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.19; participants = 2171; studies = 15; I2 = 54%), mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.20; participants = 1951; studies = 12; I2 = 0%) or pneumonia (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.19; participants = 2251; studies = 13; I2 = 27%). There was some evidence that hydrophobic HMEs may reduce the risk of pneumonia compared to HHs (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; participants = 469; studies = 3; I2 = 0%)..The overall GRADE quality of evidence was low. Although the overall methodological risk of bias was generally unclear for selection and detection bias and low risk for follow-up, the selection of study participants who were considered suitable for HME and in some studies removing participants from the HME group made the findings of this review difficult to generalize.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests no difference between HMEs and HHs on the primary outcomes of airway blockages, pneumonia and mortality. However, the overall low quality of this evidence makes it difficult to be confident about these findings. Further research is needed to compare HMEs to HHs, particularly in paediatric and neonatal populations, but research is also needed to more effectively compare different types of HME to each other as well as different types of HH.

Heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) and heated humidifiers (HHs) in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials are to evaluate the effects of active heated humidifiers (HHs) and moisture exchangers (HMEs) in preventing artificial airway occlusion and pneumonia, and on mortality in adult critically ill patients. In addition, we planned to perform a meta-regression analysis to evaluate the relationship between the incidence of artificial airway occlusion, pneumonia and mortality and clinical features of adult critically ill patients.

METHODS

Computerized databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HHs and HMEs and reporting artificial airway occlusion, pneumonia and mortality as predefined outcomes. Relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval for each outcome and I ² were estimated for each outcome. Furthermore, weighted random-effect meta-regression analysis was performed to test the relationship between the effect size on each considered outcome and covariates.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs and 2442 adult critically ill patients were included in the analysis. The incidence of artificial airway occlusion (RR = 1.853; 95% CI 0.792-4.338), pneumonia (RR = 932; 95% CI 0.730-1.190) and mortality (RR = 1.023; 95% CI 0.878-1.192) were not different in patients treated with HMEs and HHs. However, in the subgroup analyses the incidence of airway occlusion was higher in HMEs compared with HHs with non-heated wire (RR = 3.776; 95% CI 1.560-9.143). According to the meta-regression, the effect size in the treatment group on artificial airway occlusion was influenced by the percentage of patients with pneumonia (β = -0.058; p = 0.027; favors HMEs in studies with high prevalence of pneumonia), and a trend was observed for an effect of the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) (β = -0.108; p = 0.054; favors HMEs in studies with longer MV time).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis we found no superiority of HMEs and HHs, in terms of artificial airway occlusion, pneumonia and mortality. A trend favoring HMEs was observed in studies including a high percentage of patients with pneumonia diagnosis at admission and those with prolonged MV. However, the choice of humidifiers should be made according to the clinical context, trying to avoid possible complications and reaching the appropriate performance at lower costs.

Insufficient Humidification of Respiratory Gases in Patients Who Are Undergoing Therapeutic Hypothermia at a Paediatric and Adult Intensive Care Unit

For cooled newborn infants, humidifier settings for normothermic condition provide excessive gas humidity because absolute humidity at saturation is temperature-dependent. To assess humidification of respiratory gases in patients who underwent moderate therapeutic hypothermia at a paediatric/adult intensive care unit, 6 patients were studied over 9 times. Three humidifier settings, 37-default (chamber-outlet, 37°C; Y-piece, 40°C), 33.5-theoretical (chamber-outlet, 33.5°C; Y-piece, 36.5°C), and 33.5-adjusted (optimised setting to achieve saturated vapour at 33.5°C using feedback from a thermohygrometer), were tested. Y-piece gas temperature/humidity and the incidence of high (>40.6 mg/L) and low (<32.9 mg/L) humidity relative to the target level (36.6 mg/L) were assessed. Y-piece gas humidity was 32.0 (26.8–37.3), 22.7 (16.9–28.6), and 36.9 (35.5–38.3) mg/L {mean (95% confidence interval)} for 37-default setting, 33.5-theoretical setting, and 33.5-adjusted setting, respectively. High humidity was observed in 1 patient with 37-default setting, whereas low humidity was seen in 5 patients with 37-default setting and 8 patients with 33.5-theoretical setting. With 33.5-adjusted setting, inadequate Y-piece humidity was not observed. Potential risks of the default humidifier setting for insufficient respiratory gas humidification were highlighted in patients cooled at a paediatric/adult intensive care unit. Y-piece gas conditions can be controlled to the theoretically optimal level by adjusting the setting guided by Y-piece gas temperature/humidity.

Use of Normothermic Default Humidifier Settings Causes Excessive Humidification of Respiratory Gases During Therapeutic Hypothermia

Adult patients frequently suffer from serious respiratory complications during therapeutic hypothermia. During therapeutic hypothermia, respiratory gases are humidified close to saturated vapor at 37°C (44 mg/L) despite that saturated vapor reduces considerably depending on temperature reduction. Condensation may cause serious adverse events, such as bronchial edema, mucosal dysfunction, and ventilator-associated pneumonia during cooling. To determine clinical variables associated with inadequate humidification of respiratory gases during cooling, humidity of inspiratory gases was measured in 42 cumulative newborn infants who underwent therapeutic hypothermia. Three humidifier settings of 37-default (chamber outlet, 37°C; distal circuit, 40°C), 33.5-theoretical (chamber outlet, 33.5°C; distal circuit, 36.5°C), and 33.5-adjusted (optimized setting to achieve 36.6 mg/L using feedback from a hygrometer) were tested to identify independent variables of excessively high humidity >40.7 mg/L and low humidity <32.9 mg/L. The mean (SD) humidity at the Y-piece was 39.2 (5.2), 33.3 (4.1), and 36.7 (1.2) mg/L for 37-default, 33.5-theoretical, and 33.5-adjusted, respectively. The incidence of excessive high humidity was 10.3% (37-default, 31.0%; 33.5-theoretical, 0.0%; 33.5-adjusted, 0.0%), which was positively associated with the use of a counter-flow humidifier (p < 0.001), 37-default (compared with 33.5-theoretical and 33.5-adjusted, both p < 0.001) and higher fraction of inspired oxygen (p = 0.003). The incidence of excessively low humidity was 17.5% (37-default, 7.1%; 33.5-theoretical, 45.2%; 33.5-adjusted, 0.0%), which was positively associated with the use of a pass-over humidifier and 33.5-theoretical (both p < 0.001). All patients who used a counter-flow humidifier achieved the target gas humidity at the Y-piece (36.6 ± 0.5 mg/L) required for 33.5-adjusted with 33.5-theoretical. During cooling, 37-default is associated with excessively high humidity, whereas 33.5-theoretical leads to excessively low humidity. Future studies are needed to assess whether a new regimen with optimized Y-piece temperature and humidity control reduces serious respiratory adverse events during cooling.

Humidification during mechanical ventilation in the adult patient

Humidification of inhaled gases has been standard of care in mechanical ventilation for a long period of time. More than a century ago, a variety of reports described important airway damage by applying dry gases during artificial ventilation. Consequently, respiratory care providers have been utilizing external humidifiers to compensate for the lack of natural humidification mechanisms when the upper airway is bypassed. Particularly, active and passive humidification devices have rapidly evolved. Sophisticated systems composed of reservoirs, wires, heating devices, and other elements have become part of our usual armamentarium in the intensive care unit. Therefore, basic knowledge of the mechanisms of action of each of these devices, as well as their advantages and disadvantages, becomes a necessity for the respiratory care and intensive care practitioner. In this paper, we review current methods of airway humidification during invasive mechanical ventilation of adult patients. We describe a variety of devices and describe the eventual applications according to specific clinical conditions.

Comparison of the effects of two humidifier systems on endotracheal tube resistance

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of two humidifier systems on endotracheal tube (ETT) resistance during mechanical ventilation, either an active heated humidifier (HH) or a passive heat and moisture exchanger (HME) was selected using current clinical recommendations.

METHODS

This was a prospective clinical cohort study performed in an intensive care unit. Gas conditioning was performed using the HH in 22 patients and the HME in another 22. Patients were matched for endotracheal tube diameter, days of mechanical ventilation, simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), and fluid balance.

RESULTS

Used-ETT resistance was measured immediately after extubation. Unused-ETT resistance was calculated with an identical, clean ETT. No differences were found between the HH and HME groups in ETT diameter (7.9 ± 0.4 vs. 7.9 ± 0.3 mm; p = 0.98), days of mechanical ventilation (11.3 ± 7.7 vs. 9.5 ± 4.5; p = 0.34), SAPS II (41.0 ± 13.6 vs. 42.0 ± 11.7; p = 0.79), or fluid balance (-2,552 ± 6,268 vs. -2,579 ± 5,422 mL; p = 0.98). ETT resistance increased from intubation to extubation: from 6.8 ± 1.1 to 10.6 ± 4.3 cmH(2)O L(-1) s(-1) in the HH group, (p < 0.001) and from 6.8 ± 1.1 to 10.2 ± 3.8 cmH(2)O L(-1) s(-1) in the HME group (p < 0.001), which is a 53% average increase in resistive load.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find differences between the two types of humidifiers in terms of airflow resistance during prolonged mechanical ventilation when the devices were selected on the basis of individual clinical needs. The increase in resistive load is physiologically relevant.

Heated humidification versus heat and moisture exchangers for ventilated adults and children

BACKGROUND

Humidification by artificial means must be provided when the upper airway is bypassed during mechanical ventilation. Heated humidification (HH) and heat and moisture exchangers (HME) are the most commonly used types of artificial humidification in this situation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether HHs or HMEs are more effective in preventing mortality and other complications in people who are mechanically ventilated.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4) and MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (January, 2010) to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) to heated humidifiers (HHs) in mechanically ventilated adults and children. We included randomized crossover studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the quality of each study and extracted the relevant data. Where appropriate, results from relevant studies were meta-analysed for individual outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 trials with 2833 participants, 25 studies were parallel group design (n = 2710) and eight crossover design (n = 123). Only three included studies reported data for infants or children. There was no overall effect on artificial airway occlusion, mortality, pneumonia, or respiratory complications; however, the PaCO(2) and minute ventilation were increased when HMEs were compared to HHs and body temperature was lower. The cost of HMEs was lower in all studies that reported this outcome. There was some evidence that hydrophobic HMEs may reduce the risk of pneumonia and that blockages of artificial airways may be increased with the use of HMEs in certain subgroups of patients.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence of an overall difference between HMEs and HHs. However, hydrophobic HMEs may reduce the risk of pneumonia and the use of an HME may increase artificial airway occlusion in certain subgroups of patients. Therefore, HMEs may not be suitable for patients with limited respiratory reserve or prone to airway blockage. Further research is needed relating to hydrophobic versus hygroscopic HMEs and the use of HMEs in the paediatric and neonatal populations. As the design of HMEs evolves, evaluation of new generation HMEs will also need to be undertaken.

Humidification performance of 48 passive airway humidifiers: comparison with manufacturer data

INTRODUCTION

Heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) are increasingly used in the ICU for gas conditioning during mechanical ventilation. Independent assessments of the humidification performance of HMEs are scarce. The aim of the present study was thus to assess the humidification performance of a large number of adult HMEs.

METHOD

We assessed 48 devices using a bench test apparatus that simulated real-life physiologic ventilation conditions. Thirty-two devices were described by the manufacturers as HMEs, and 16 were described as antibacterial filters. The test apparatus provided expiratory gases with an absolute humidity (AH) of 35 mg H(2)O/L. The AH of inspired gases was measured after steady state using the psychrometric method. We performed three hygrometric measurements for each device, measured their resistance, and compared our results with the manufacturer data.

RESULTS

Of the 32 HMEs tested, only 37.5% performed well (>or= 30 mg H(2)O/L), while 25% performed poorly (< 25 mg H(2)O/L). The mean difference (+/- SD) between our measurements and the manufacturer data was 3.0 +/- 2.7 mg H(2)O/L for devices described as HMEs (maximum, 8.9 mg H(2)O/L) [p = 0.0001], while the mean difference for 36% of the HMEs was > 4 mg H(2)O/L. The mean difference for the antibacterial filters was 0.2 +/- 1.4 mg H(2)O/L. The mean resistance of all the tested devices was 2.17 +/- 0.70 cm H(2)O/L/s.

CONCLUSIONS

Several HMEs performed poorly and should not be used as HMEs. The values determined by independent assessments may be lower than the manufacturer data. Describing a device as an HME does not guarantee that it provides adequate humidification. The performance of HMEs must be verified by independent assessment.