Comparison of noninvasive ventilation by sequential use of mask and helmet versus mask in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a preliminary study

Comparing the effects of continuous positive airway pressure via mask or helmet interface on oxygenation and pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery: a randomized trial

The risk of pulmonary complications is high after major abdominal surgery but may be reduced by prophylactic postoperative noninvasive ventilation using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). This study compared the effects of intermittent mask CPAP (ICPAP) and continuous helmet CPAP (HCPAP) on oxygenation and the risk of pulmonary complications following major abdominal surgery. Patients undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair or pancreaticoduodenectomy were randomized (1:1) to either postoperative ICPAP or HCPAP. Oxygenation was evaluated as the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FIO₂) at 6 h, 12 h, and 18 h postoperatively. Pulmonary complications were defined as X-ray verified pneumonia/atelectasis, clinical signs of pneumonia, or supplementary oxygen beyond postoperative day 3. Patient-reported comfort during CPAP treatment was also evaluated. In total, 96 patients (ICPAP, n = 48; HCPAP, n = 48) were included, and the type of surgical procedure were evenly distributed between the groups. Oxygenation did not differ between the groups by 6 h, 12 h, or 18 h postoperatively (p = 0.1, 0.08, and 0.67, respectively). Nor was there any difference in X-ray verified pneumonia/atelectasis (p = 0.40) or supplementary oxygen beyond postoperative day 3 (p = 0.53). Clinical signs of pneumonia tended to be more frequent in the ICPAP group (p = 0.06), yet the difference was not statistically significant. Comfort scores were similar in both groups (p = 0.43), although a sensation of claustrophobia during treatment was only experienced in the HCPAP group (11% vs. 0%, p = 0.03). Compared with ICPAP, using HCPAP was associated with similar oxygenation (i.e., PaO₂/FIO₂ ratio) and a similar risk of pulmonary complications. However, HCPAP treatment was associated with a higher sensation of claustrophobia.

Advantages and drawbacks of helmet noninvasive support in acute respiratory failure

INTRODUCTION

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) represents an effective strategy for managing acute respiratory failure. Facemask NIV is strongly recommended in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with hypercapnia and acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). Its role in managing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) remains a debated issue. NIV and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) delivered through the helmet are recently receiving growing interest for AHRF management.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, we discuss the clinical applications of helmet support compared to the other available noninvasive strategies in the different phenotypes of acute respiratory failure.

EXPERT OPINION

Helmets enable the use of high positive end-expiratory pressure, which may protect from self-inflicted lung injury: in AHRF, the possible superiority of helmet support over other noninvasive strategies in terms of clinical outcome has been hypothesized in a network metanalysis and a randomized trial, but has not been confirmed by other investigations and warrants confirmation. In AECOPD patients, helmet efficacy may be inferior to that of face masks, and its use prompts caution due to the risk of CO₂ rebreathing. Helmet support can be safely applied in hypoxemic patients with ACPE, with no advantages over facemasks.

Role of helmet ventilation during the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization; it has affected millions of people and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia may develop acute hypoxia respiratory failure and require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive respiratory management. Healthcare workers have a high risk of contracting COVID-19 while fitting respiratory devices. Recently, European experts have suggested that the use of helmet continuous positive airway pressure should be the first choice for acute hypoxia respiratory failure caused by COVID-19 because it reduces the spread of the virus in the ambient air. By contrast, in the United States, helmets were restricted for respiratory care before the COVID-19 pandemic until the Food and Drug Administration provided the ‘Umbrella Emergency Use Authorization for Ventilators and Ventilator Accessories’. This narrative review provides an evidence-based overview of the use of helmet ventilation for patients with respiratory failure.

Comfort During Non-invasive Ventilation

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been shown to be effective in avoiding intubation and improving survival in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF) when compared to conventional oxygen therapy. However, NIV is associated with high failure rates due, in most cases, to patient discomfort. Therefore, increasing attention has been paid to all those interventions aimed at enhancing patient's tolerance to NIV. Several practical aspects have been considered to improve patient adaptation. In particular, the choice of the interface and the ventilatory setting adopted for NIV play a key role in the success of respiratory assistance. Among the different NIV interfaces, tolerance is poorest for the nasal and oronasal masks, while helmet appears to be better tolerated, resulting in longer use and lower NIV failure rates. The choice of fixing system also significantly affects patient comfort due to pain and possible pressure ulcers related to the device. The ventilatory setting adopted for NIV is associated with varying degrees of patient comfort: patients are more comfortable with pressure-support ventilation (PSV) than controlled ventilation. Furthermore, the use of electrical activity of the diaphragm (EADi)-driven ventilation has been demonstrated to improve patient comfort when compared to PSV, while reducing neural drive and effort. If non-pharmacological remedies fail, sedation can be employed to improve patient's tolerance to NIV. Sedation facilitates ventilation, reduces anxiety, promotes sleep, and modulates physiological responses to stress. Judicious use of sedation may be an option to increase the chances of success in some patients at risk for intubation because of NIV intolerance consequent to pain, discomfort, claustrophobia, or agitation. During the Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, NIV has been extensively employed to face off the massive request for ventilatory assistance. Prone positioning in non-intubated awake COVID-19 patients may improve oxygenation, reduce work of breathing, and, possibly, prevent intubation. Despite these advantages, maintaining prone position can be particularly challenging because poor comfort has been described as the main cause of prone position discontinuation. In conclusion, comfort is one of the major determinants of NIV success. All the strategies aimed to increase comfort during NIV should be pursued.

The use of head helmets to deliver noninvasive ventilatory support: a comprehensive review of technical aspects and clinical findings

A helmet, comprising a transparent hood and a soft collar, surrounding the patient’s head can be used to deliver noninvasive ventilatory support, both as continuous positive airway pressure and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV), the latter providing active support for inspiration. In this review, we summarize the technical aspects relevant to this device, particularly how to prevent CO₂ rebreathing and improve patient–ventilator synchrony during NPPV. Clinical studies describe the application of helmets in cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, pneumonia, COVID-19, postextubation and immune suppression. A section is dedicated to paediatric use. In summary, helmet therapy can be used safely and effectively to provide NIV during hypoxemic respiratory failure, improving oxygenation and possibly leading to better patient-centred outcomes than other interfaces.

Helmet non-invasive ventilation compared to facemask non-invasive ventilation and high flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although small randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have examined helmet non-invasive ventilation (NIV), uncertainty remains regarding its role. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of helmet NIV compared to facemask NIV or high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in acute respiratory failure.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases to identify RCTs and observational studies reporting on at least one of mortality, intubation, ICU length of stay, NIV duration, complications, or comfort with NIV therapy. We assessed study risk of bias (ROB) using the Cochrane ROB tool for RCTs and the Ottawa-Newcastle scale for observational studies and rated certainty of pooled evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

We separately pooled data from 16 RCTs (n=949) and 8 observational studies (n=396). Compared to facemask NIV, based on low certainty evidence, helmet NIV may reduce mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.33 to 0.95)), and intubation (RR 0.35, 95% CI (0.22 to 0.56)) in both hypoxic and hypercapnic respiratory failure but may have no effect on duration of NIV. There was an uncertain effect of helmet on ICU length of stay and development of pressure sores. Data from observational studies was consistent with the foregoing findings but of lower certainty. Based on low and very low certainty data, helmet NIV may reduce intubation compared to HFNC, but its effect on mortality is uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Compared to facemask NIV, helmet NIV may reduce mortality and intubation; however, the effect of helmet compared to HFNC remains uncertain.

The roles of noninvasive mechanical ventilation with helmet in patients with acute respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the safety and effectiveness between helmet and face mask noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

Methods

English databases included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. Chinese databases involved Wanfang Data, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and Chinese Biological Medicine Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing helmet and face mask NIMV for patients with ARF were searched. Meta-analysis was performed using Review manager 5.1.0.

Results

Twelve trials with a total of 569 patients were eligible. Our meta-analysis showed that, comparing with face mask, helmet could significantly decrease the incidences of intolerance [risk ratio (RR) 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09−0.39], facial skin ulcer (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.08−0.43) and aerophagia (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.06−0.37), reduce respiratory rate [mean difference (MD) -3.10; 95% CI -4.85 to -1.34], intubation rate (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.26−0.59) and hospital mortality (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39−0.99) in patients with ARF, and improve oxygenation index in patients with hypoxemic ARF (MD 55.23; 95% CI 31.37−79.09). However, subgroupanalysis for hypercapnic ARF revealed that PaCO₂ was significantly reduced in face mask group compared with helmet group (MD 5.34; 95% CI 3.41−7.27).

Conclusion

NIMV with helmet can improve the patient’s tolerance, reduce adverse events, increase oxygenation effect, and decrease intubation rate and hospital mortality comparing to face mask. However, the low number of patients from included studies may preclude strong conclusions. Large RCTs are still needed to provide more robust evidence.

Helmet-based noninvasive ventilation for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A case report

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) reduces intubation rates, mortalities, and lengths of hospital and intensive care unit stays in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Helmet-based NIV is better tolerated than oronasal mask-based ventilation, and thus, allows NIV to be conducted for prolonged periods at higher pressures with minimal air leaks.

CASE SUMMARY

A 73-year-old man with a previous diagnosis of COPD stage 4 was admitted to our medical intensive care unit with chief complaints of cough, sputum, and dyspnea of several days’ duration. For 10 mo, he had been on oxygen at home by day and had used an oronasal mask-based NIV at night. At intensive care unit admission, he breathed using respiratory accessory muscles. Hypercapnia and signs of infection were detected, and infiltration was observed in the right lower lung field by chest radiography. Thus, we diagnosed AECOPD by community-acquired pneumonia. After admission, respiratory distress steadily deteriorated and invasive mechanical ventilation became necessary. However, the patient refused this option, and thus, we selected helmet-based NIV as a salvage treatment. After 3 d of helmet-based NIV, his consciousness level and hypercapnia recovered to his pre-hospitalization level.

CONCLUSION

Helmet-based NIV could be considered as a salvage treatment when AECOPD patients refuse invasive mechanical ventilation and oronasal mask-based NIV is ineffective.

How may we improve clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? A narrative review about possible therapeutic and preventive strategies

Introduction: In a subset of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)patients the course of the disease is complicated by a severe acute exacerbations (AECOPD) that may require hospitalization, at which time negative outcomes may occur up to 30 days after discharge. Several predictors of negative outcomes have been documented.Areas covered: We considered five negative outcomes related to patients hospitalized with AECOPD: treatment failure, noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) failure, prolonged length of hospital stay (LHS), short-term mortality (≤ 90 days from admission and including the in-hospital mortality), and early readmission (≤30 days from discharge). Possible therapeutic and preventive strategies to improve these outcomes are outlined and discussed.Expert opinion: Several strategies have been proposed to improve outcomes. Among these, steroid or antibiotic use may reduce the risks of treatment failure or of prolonged hospital stay. We note that operator-related factors may influence the outcome of NIMV. However, little has been documented about the short-term mortality or early readmission rates. In general, few interventions consistently improve negative outcomes and prognosis of AECOPD.

Management of severe acute exacerbations of COPD: an updated narrative review

Background

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may experience an acute worsening of respiratory symptoms that results in additional therapy; this event is defined as a COPD exacerbation (AECOPD). Hospitalization for AECOPD is accompanied by a rapid decline in health status with a high risk of mortality or other negative outcomes such as need for endotracheal intubation or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Treatments for AECOPD aim to minimize the negative impact of the current exacerbation and to prevent subsequent events, such as relapse or readmission to hospital.

Main body

In this narrative review, we update the scientific evidence about the in-hospital pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments used in the management of a severe AECOPD. We review inhaled bronchodilators, steroids, and antibiotics for the pharmacological approach, and oxygen, high flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) oxygen therapy, non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) as non-pharmacological treatments. We also review some studies of non-conventional drugs that have been proposed for severe AECOPD.

Conclusion

Several treatments exist for severe AECOPD patients requiring hospitalization. Some treatments such as steroids and NIMV (in patients admitted with a hypercapnic acute respiratory failure and respiratory acidosis) are supported by strong evidence of their efficacy. HFNC oxygen therapy needs further prospective studies. Although antibiotics are preferred in ICU patients, there is a lack of evidence regarding the preferred drugs and optimal duration of treatment for non-ICU patients. Early rehabilitation, if associated with standard treatment of patients, is recommended due to its feasibility and safety. There are currently few promising new drugs or new applications of existing drugs.

New Setting of Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist during Noninvasive Ventilation through a Helmet

BACKGROUND

Compared to pneumatically controlled pressure support (PSP), neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) was proved to improve patient-ventilator interactions, while not affecting comfort, diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi), and arterial blood gases (ABGs). This study compares neurally controlled pressure support (PSN) with PSP and NAVA, delivered through two different helmets, in hypoxemic patients receiving noninvasive ventilation for prevention of extubation failure.

METHODS

Fifteen patients underwent three (PSP, NAVA, and PSN) 30-min trials in random order with both helmets. Positive end-expiratory pressure was always set at 10 cm H2O. In PSP, the inspiratory support was set at 10 cm H2O above positive end-expiratory pressure. NAVA was adjusted to match peak EAdi (EAdipeak) during PSP. In PSN, the NAVA level was set at maximum matching the pressure delivered during PSP by limiting the upper pressure. The authors assessed patient comfort, EAdipeak, rates of pressurization (i.e., airway pressure-time product [PTP] of the first 300 and 500 ms after the initiation of patient effort, indexed to the ideal pressure-time products), and measured ABGs.

RESULTS

PSN significantly increased comfort to (median [25 to 75% interquartile range]) 8 [7 to 8] and 9 [8 to 9] with standard and new helmets, respectively, as opposed to both PSP (5 [5 to 6] and 7 [6 to 7]) and NAVA (6 [5 to 7] and 7 [6 to 8]; P < 0.01 for all comparisons). Regardless of the interface, PSN also decreased EAdipeak (P < 0.01), while increasing PTP of the first 300 ms from the onset of patient effort, indexed to the ideal PTP (P < 0.01) and PTP of the first 500 ms from the onset of patient effort, indexed to the ideal PTP (P < 0.001). ABGs were not different among trials.

CONCLUSIONS

When delivering noninvasive ventilation by helmet, compared to PSP and NAVA, PSN improves comfort and patient-ventilator interactions, while not ABGs. (Anesthesiology 2016; 125:1181-9).

Interfaces for noninvasive ventilation in the acute setting in children

The use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is very specific in the acute setting as compared to its use in a chronic setting. In the Pediatric Intensive care Unit (PICU), NIV may be required around the clock and initiation has to be fast and easy. Despite the increasing use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and the larger choice of interfaces, data comparing the use of different interfaces for pediatric patients are scarce and recommendations for the most appropriate choice of interface are lacking. However, this choice in acute settings is crucial and a major contributor of the success of NIV. The aim of the present review was to describe the different types of interfaces available for children in the acute setting, their advantages and limitations, to highlight how to choose the optimal interface, and how to monitor the tolerance of the interface.

Noninvasive ventilation with helmet versus control strategy in patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies

Background

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has proved to be a useful technique for breathing support. However, complications, discomfort, and failure of NIV were commonly caused by the mask. Therefore, the helmet was developed to improve performance and reduce complications; however, there has been no conclusive results on its effect until now. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of NIV with a helmet versus the control strategy in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

Methods

We searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid, and Embase databases and bibliographies of relevant articles published before June 2016. Randomized and case-control studies that adopted the helmet as an NIV interface and compared it with another interface were included. The primary outcomes were hospital mortality, intubation rate, and complications. The secondary outcomes included the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, gas exchange, and respiratory rate. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel method and mean difference by the inverse variance method in a fixed effect model or random effects model according to the heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 11 studies involving 621 patients were included. The overall hospital mortality was 17.53 % in the helmet NIV group versus 30.67 % in the control group. Use of the helmet was associated with lower hospital mortality (OR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.26 to 0.69, p = 0.0005), intubation rate (OR 0.32, 95 % CI 0.21 to 0.47, P < 0.00001), and complications (OR 0.6, 95 % CI 0.4 to 0.92, P = 0.02). In contrast, there was no significant difference in gas exchange and ICU stay (P >0.05). Subgroup analysis found the helmet reduced mortality mainly in hypoxemic ARF patients (P < 0.05) and a lower intubation rate was shown in randomized trials; fewer complications caused by the helmet might be restricted to case-control trials. Additionally, the effect of the helmet on PaCO₂ was influenced by type of ARF and ventilation mode (P <0.00001).

Conclusion

NIV with a helmet was associated with reduced hospital mortality and intubation requirement. The helmet was as effective as the mask in gas exchange with no additional advantage. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to provide more robust evidence.

Helmet CPAP versus Oxygen Therapy in Hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The efficacy of helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) remains unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to critically review studies that investigated the effect of helmet CPAP on gas exchange, mortality, and intubation rate in comparison with standard oxygen therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, OVID, and CBM databases, and the bibliographies of the retrieved articles. Studies that enrolled adults with hARF who were treated with helmet CPAP and measured at least one of the following parameters were included: gas exchange, intubation rate, in-hospital mortality rate.

RESULTS

Four studies with 377 subjects met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Compared to the standard oxygen therapy, helmet CPAP significantly increased the PaO₂/FiO₂ [weighted mean difference (WMD)=73.40, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 43.92 to 102.87, p<0.00001], and decreased the arterial carbon dioxide levels (WMD=-1.92, 95% CI: -3.21 to -0.63, p=0.003), intubation rate [relative risk (RR)=0.21, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.40, p<0.00001], and in-hospital mortality rate (RR=0.22, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.50, p=0.0004).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that helmet CPAP improves oxygenation and reduces mortality and intubation rates in hARF. However, the significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity of the literature implies that large RCTs are needed to determine the role of helmet CPAP in different hypoxemic ARF populations.

New versus Conventional Helmet for Delivering Noninvasive Ventilation: A Physiologic, Crossover Randomized Study in Critically Ill Patients

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.

Clinical review: Helmet and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients

Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) has proved to be an excellent technique in selected critically ill patients with different forms of acute respiratory failure. However, NIV can fail on account of the severity of the disease and technical problems, particularly at the interface. The helmet could be an alternative interface compared to face mask to improve NIV success. We performed a clinical review to investigate the main physiological and clinical studies assessing the efficacy and related issues of NIV delivered with a helmet. A computerized search strategy of MEDLINE/PubMed (January 2000 to May 2012) and EMBASE (January 2000 to May 2012) was conducted limiting the search to retrospective, prospective, nonrandomized and randomized trials. We analyzed 152 studies from which 33 were selected, 12 physiological and 21 clinical (879 patients). The physiological studies showed that NIV with helmet could predispose to CO₂ rebreathing and increase the patients' ventilator asynchrony. The main indications for NIV were acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (community-acquired pneumonia, postoperative and immunocompromised patients) and hypercapnic acute respiratory failure. In 9 of the 21 studies the helmet was compared to a face mask during either continous positive airway pressure or pressure support ventilation. In eight studies oxygenation was similar in the two groups, while the intubation rate was similar in four and lower in three studies for the helmet group compared to face mask group. The outcome was similar in six studies. The tolerance was better with the helmet in six of the studies. Although these data are limited, NIV delivered by helmet could be a safe alternative to the face mask in patients with acute respiratory failure.

Bench comparative evaluation of a new generation and standard helmet for delivering non-invasive ventilation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of a new helmet (NH) recently introduced into clinical use relative to that of the standard helmet (SH) in terms of delivering non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and pressure support ventilation (nPSV).

DESIGN

This was a bench study using a mannequin connected to an active lung simulator. The SH was fastened to the mannequin by armpit braces, which are not needed to secure the NH.

MEASUREMENTS

The inspiratory and expiratory variations in nCPAP delivered with two different simulated efforts (Pmus), were determined relative to the preset CPAP level. nPSV was applied at two simulated respiratory rates (RR) and two cycling-off flow thresholds. We measured inspiratory trigger delay (Delay trinsp), expiratory trigger delay (Delay trexp), time of synchrony (Time sync), trigger pressure drop (ΔP trigger), airway pressure-time product during the triggering phase (PTPt), the initial 200 ms from the onset of the ventilator pressurization (PTP 200), and the initial 300 and 500 ms from the onset of the simulated effort; this two latter parameters were expressed as the percentage of the area of ideal pressurization (PTP 300-index and PTP 500-index, respectively).

RESULTS

In nCPAP, at both Pmus, the differences between the two interfaces at both Pmus were small and clinically irrelevant. In nPSV, regardless of the setting, NH resulted in significantly smaller trigger delays, ΔP trigger, and PTPt. Time sync, PTP 200, PTP 300-index, and PTP 500-index were also significantly higher with the NH compared to the SH, irrespective of the setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the SH, the NH is equally effective in delivering nCPAP and more effective in delivering nPSV, and it is used to avoid the need for armpit braces.