Analysis of resistance to gas flow in nine adult ventilator circuits

Pressure-flow characteristics of breathing systems and their components for pediatric and adult patients

BACKGROUND

Breathing circuits connect the ventilator to the patients' respiratory system. Breathing tubes, connectors, and sensors contribute to artificial airway resistance to a varying extent. We hypothesized that the flow-dependent resistance is higher in pediatric breathing systems and their components compared to respective types for adults.

AIMS

We aimed to characterize the resistance of representative breathing systems and their components used in pediatric patients (including devices for adults) by their nonlinear pressure-flow relationship.

METHODS

We used a physical model to measure the flow-dependent pressure gradient (∆P) across breathing tubes, breathing tube extensions, 90°- and Y-connectors, flow- and carbon dioxide sensors, water traps and reusable, disposable and coaxial breathing systems for pediatric and for adult patients. ∆P was analyzed for usual flow ranges and statistically compared at a representative flow rate of 300 mL∙s^-1 (∆P₃₀₀ ).

RESULTS

∆P across pediatric devices always exceeded ∆P across the corresponding devices for adult patients (all P < .001 [no 95% CI includes 0]). ∆P₃₀₀ across breathing system components for adults was always below 0.2 cmH₂ O but reached up to 4.6 cmH₂ O in a flow sensor for pediatric patients. ∆P₃₀₀ was considerably higher across the reusable compared to the disposable pediatric breathing systems (1.9 vs 0.3 cmH₂ O, P < .001, [95% CI -1.59 to -1.56]).

CONCLUSION

The resistances of pediatric breathing systems and their components result in pressure gradients exceeding those for adults several fold. Considering the resistance of individual components is crucial for composing a breathing system matching the patient's needs. Compensation of the additional resistance should be considered if a large composed resistance is unavoidable.

Mechanical effects of heat-moisture exchangers in ventilated patients

Although they represent a valuable alternative to heated humidifiers, artificial noses have unfavourable mechanical effects. Most important of these is the increase in dead space, with consequent increase in the ventilation requirement. Also, artificial noses increase the inspiratory and expiratory resistance of the apparatus, and may mildly increase intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure. The significance of these effects depends on the design and function of the artificial nose. The pure humidifying function results in just a moderate increase in dead space and resistance of the apparatus, whereas the combination of a filtering function with the humidifying function may critically increase the volume and the resistance of the artificial nose, especially when a mechanical filter is used. The increase in the inspiratory load of ventilation that is imposed by artificial noses, which is particularly significant for the combined heat-moisture exchanger filters, should be compensated for by an increase either in ventilator output or in patient's work of breathing. Although both approaches can be tolerated by most patients, some exceptions should be considered. The increased pressure and volume that are required to compensate for the artificial nose application increase the risk of barotrauma and volutrauma in those patients who have the most severe alterations in respiratory mechanics. Moreover, those patients who have very limited respiratory reserve may not be able to compensate for the inspiratory work imposed by an artificial nose. When we choose an artificial nose, we should take into account the volume and resistance of the available devices. We should also consider the mechanical effects of the artificial noses when setting mechanical ventilation and when assessing a patient's ability to breathe spontaneously.

[Heat and moisture exchanging filters for conditioning of inspired gases in adult anesthesia and resuscitation]

OBJECTIVES

Heat and moisture-exchanging filters (HMEFs) are increasingly used in clinical practice. At the same time, new scientific data are available which clarify the benefits of these devices.

DATA SOURCES

We searched in the Medline database for all papers written in English or French, without limiting date of publication, using the following key-words separately or in combination: humidity, temperature, mechanical ventilation, equipment.

STUDY SELECTION

From the 200 articles provided by Medline, we selected those directly concerning HMEFs. Some older studies and those on HMEFs no longer available were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Principle data available from the literature were analysed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Humidification and warming of the inspired gas mixture is mandatory during mechanical ventilation. There is a direct link between HMEF performance and the characteristics of tracheal secretions. This justified the recommendation for the use of HMEFs with a humidity output above 30 mg of water per litre of gas mixture. In this case, HMEFs are as efficient as conventional heated humidifiers. HMEFs seem to decrease the rate of nosocomial pneumonia in comparison with heated humidifiers. HMEFs induce a slight increase of dead space which should be taken into consideration during weaning from mechanical ventilation. There are demonstrable data in the literature suggesting the possibility of cross viral infection via the anaesthetic machine when an HMEF is not used. There are no data which suggest a specific type of HMEF regarding viral filtration.

CONCLUSION

According to the literature data, using an HMEF is essential in anaesthesia and is highly recommended in intensive care.

Patient-ventilator flow dyssynchrony: flow-limited versus pressure-limited breaths

OBJECTIVES

Patient-ventilator flow dyssynchrony occurs when ventilator flow delivery is insufficient to meet patient demands. If sufficiently severe, flow dyssynchrony can produce significant imposed loads on ventilatory muscles. Flow dyssynchrony can be improved by increasing ventilator flow delivery. We hypothesized that the variable flow pressure-limited breath would be a better approach for matching patient flow demands than adjusting a set flow on a conventional volume-cycled breath.

DESIGN

Clinical interventional study.

SETTING

Medical intensive care unit.

PATIENTS

Sixteen stable, mechanically ventilated patients receiving volume-cycled assist-control ventilation.

INTERVENTIONS

Flow dyssynchrony was produced by reducing the set flow by 50%. Dyssynchrony was quantified by measuring the esophageal pressure time product during the assisted breath. Two strategies were then employed in an attempt to reduce the dyssynchrony. One strategy was to increase flow back to the initial set flow and then further increase flow by an additional 25% (VI strategy). The other strategy was to use a pressure-limited breath feature coupled to a volume assist breath (the P strategy). With the P strategy, the pressure limit was set at 75% and 100% of the static elastic recoil pressure at end-inspiration.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Pressure time product, intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure, and the ventilatory pattern were measured with each strategy and were analyzed by analysis of variance. Induced baseline flow dyssynchrony, as measured by the pressure time product, was > 5 cm H2O/sec in ten of 16 patients. This dyssynchrony was significantly reduced by both the VI strategy and the P strategy, although the P strategy appeared to be more effective in those patients with the greatest baseline dyssynchrony. Baseline inspiratory time was also shortened by both the VI strategy and the P strategy; the VI strategy shortened baseline inspiratory time more than the P strategy. Baseline tidal volume, frequency, and intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure were only minimally affected by either strategy.

CONCLUSION

The pressure-limited, variable-flow approach to ventilator gas delivery appears to be more responsive to a vigorous patient effort than a fixed-flow approach.

The impact of heat and moisture exchanging humidifiers on work of breathing

In this study the resistive work or breathing (WOB) associated with eleven commercially available heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) was evaluated for gas flow rates of 20 to 60 l.min-1. The Gibeck Humid-Vent 2S Flex was also assessed after 24 hours patient usage (n = 50). The WOB associated with these devices was compared with that of standard endotracheal tubes and standard humidifying circuits with flex-tube connectors. The range of work imposed by the eleven HMEs approximated the range shown by water bath circuitry when used with two different commonly used flex-tube connectors. The excess WOB attributed to the HMEs was significantly less than that imposed by standard endotracheal tubes. After 24 hours of patient use, 96% of the Gibeck HMEs tested demonstrated a resistive WOB within the range of the two flex-tube connectors. To assess the clinical significance of this circuit-related WOB, we compared respiratory variables in 40 patients breathing on either CPAP or pressure support ventilation, using a variation in flex-tube resistance which imposed a range of WOB comparable to that shown by the HMEs. A small but statistically significant reduction was found for both the peak flow (48 +/- 1.4 vs 45 +/- 1.1 l.min-1, P < 0.0005) and the minute volume (8.6 +/- 0.35 vs 7.9 +/- 0.31, l, P < 0.0005). These data suggest that the range of resistive work imposed by commercially available HMEs has a small but potentially significant effect on clinical respiratory parameters.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs. intermittent mandatory pressure release ventilation (IMPRV) in patients with acute respiratory failure

Intermittent Mandatory Pressure Release Ventilation (IMPRV) is a positive pressure spontaneous breathing ventilatory mode in which airway pressure is released intermittently and synchronously with patient's spontaneous expiration in order to provide ventilatory assistance. Eight critically ill patients free of any factor known to alter chest wall mechanics (group 1) and 8 critically ill patients whose spontaneous respiratory activity was markedly altered by a flail chest, or by a C5 quadraplegia and/or by the administration of opioids (group 2) were studied prospectively. CPAP and IMPRV were administered to each patient in a random order during a 1 h period using a CESAR ventilator. Gas flow, tidal volume, tracheal pressure, esophageal pressure, end-expiratory lung volume and hemodynamic parameters were measured. In group 1 patients, the ventilatory assistance provided by IMPRV was associated with a significant decrease in spontaneous tidal volume whereas all other respiratory parameters remained unchanged. In group 2 patients, IMPRV increased minute ventilation from 8.0 +/- 2.61/min to 12.2 +/- 1.81/min (p less than 0.05), decreased PaCO2 from 46 +/- 7.3 mmHg to 38 +/- 6.8 mmHg (p less than 0.05) and reduced respiratory frequency from 21 +/- 10 bpm to 14 +/- 5.7 bpm (p less than 0.07). These results show that IMPRV provides significant ventilatory assistance to patients with mild acute respiratory failure either by decreasing patient's contribution to minute ventilation or by increasing alveolar ventilation in presence of respiratory depression of central or peripheral origin.

Flow resistance of coaxial breathing systems: investigation of a circuit disconnect

A clinical incident involving an undetected disconnection occurred during the use of a CPRAM coaxial breathing circuit. The flow resistance of this circuit was evaluated and compared with that of a Bain circuit to determine the factors involved. A differential pressure transducer was used to monitor the pressure drop across each circuit during simulation of controlled ventilation with a fresh gas flow of 6 L.min-1. An Ohio V5 anaesthesia ventilator was adjusted to different flow rates and tidal volumes and a test lung simulated an airway resistance of 2.7 cm H2O.L-1.sec and a compliance of 0.05 L.cmH2O-1. Absolute pressure at the ventilator was also monitored when the circuit was disconnected from the test lung. The CPRAM circuit displayed a pressure drop from the ventilator to the endotracheal tube of 6.3 cm H2O at 60 L.min-1, about twice that found with the Bain. A disconnection at the tracheal connector produced an absolute pressure at the ventilator of 9.6 cm H2O with the CPRAM and 5.5 cm H2O with the Bain. Since the ventilator low pressure alarm was preset to 9.2 cm H2O, the alarm provided a warning with the Bain but not the CPRAM. The elevated flow resistance of the CPRAM circuit was attributed to a restriction in the flow area at the patient end of the circuit. Capnographs or adjustable low-pressure alarms provide more reliable monitoring for breathing circuit disconnects.