Flow resistance, work of breathing of humidifiers, and endotracheal tubes in the hyperbaric chamber

A technical review of the history, development and performance of the anaesthetic conserving device "AnaConDa" for delivering volatile anaesthetic in intensive and post-operative critical care

There is a shift in critical care to adopt volatile anaesthetics as sedatives for certain patients using mechanical ventilation. Accompanying this shift is a growing body of literature describing the advantages or disadvantages of using isoflurane or sevoflurane for long term sedation. This practise requires a cost effective, efficient and safe means to deliver these drugs that can simultaneously operate with modern critical care ventilators and ventilation protocols while protecting the care environment and care workers from excessive exposure to the drugs. The anaesthetic conserving device (“AnaConDa”, Sedana Medical) is one device that delivers a safe sedative dose of either isoflurane or sevoflurane to a patient using existing critical care ventilators, common syringe pumps and gas monitors. The device is essentially a small disposable anaesthetic vaporizer and HME filter combined into one airway component. Similar to an HME filter, the device reflects moisture back to the patient, but also reflects 90% of the anaesthetic by adsorbing and releasing the drug using a proprietary carbon filament reflecting medium. This reflection reduces the total amount of anaesthetic needed, reducing that which is exhausted or scavenged upon exhalation. It can be used for 24 h of sedation, and fits into current critical care ventilator circuits almost without modifications. This article will describe the physical characteristics of the device, how it works, its development history and the performance parameters under which it can be used.

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.