0
Clinical Investigations in Critical Care |

Comparison of Five Bilevel Pressure Ventilators in Patients With Chronic Ventilatory Failure*: A Physiologic Study

Michele Vitacca, MD; Luca Barbano, MD; Silvestro D’Anna, MD; Roberto Porta, MD; Luca Bianchi, MD; Nicolino Ambrosino, MD, FCCP
Author and Funding Information

*From the Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri IRCCS, Pulmonary Division, Scientific Institute, Gussago, Italy.

Correspondence to: Nicolino Ambrosino, MD, FCCP, Fondazione S. Maugeri Pulmonary Division Istituto Scientifico di Gussago I-25064 Gussago (BS), Italy; e-mail: nambrosino@fsm.it



Chest. 2002;122(6):2105-2114. doi:10.1378/chest.122.6.2105
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective: To compare patient-ventilator interaction and comfort in patients with chronic ventilatory failure (CVF) who are undergoing noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation with five different commercial bilevel pressure home ventilators. Also, we wanted to evaluate the short-term effects of the five ventilators on physiologic variables, namely, breathing patterns and inspiratory muscles.

Design: Randomized, controlled physiologic study.

Setting: Pulmonary division of a rehabilitation institution.

Patients: Twenty-eight patients with CVF due to COPD (17 patients) and restrictive chest wall diseases (11 patients).

Measurements: Sensation of comfort, breathing patterns and minute ventilation (V̇e), respiratory muscles and mechanics, and patient-ventilator interaction during both unassisted and assisted ventilation with the five ventilators applied randomly.

Results: The five ventilators showed different flow and pressure waveforms. The level of comfort was somehow different among the studied ventilators. When compared to unassisted ventilation, all ventilators induced a significant increase in V̇e (p < 0.01) without any significant difference among ventilators. Use of the five ventilators resulted in significant differences in peak airway opening pressure (Pao,peak) but not in mean airway opening pressure computed over a period of 1 min (PTPao,min), and in a duty cycle. Ineffective efforts (IEs) were similar among the studied ventilators. In comparison with unassisted ventilation, all ventilators induced significant reductions in inspiratory muscle effort (p < 0.001). No significant relationship was found between level of comfort and PTPao,min, Pao,peak, or the number of IEs.

Conclusions: In stable, awake patients with CVF, all of the studied ventilators were well-tolerated, although with a great intersubject variability in comfort, and performed well in terms of improvement in V̇e and inspiratory muscle unloading, thus fulfilling the aims of mechanical ventilation. This effect was obtained with similar levels of PTPao,min, despite the fact that Pao,peak was different among some ventilators. The number of IEs was similar among the studied ventilators.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543