0
Original Research: CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE |

Influence of Two Different Interfaces for Noninvasive Ventilation Compared to Invasive Ventilation on the Mechanical Properties and Performance of a Respiratory System*: A Lung Model Study FREE TO VIEW

Onnen Moerer, MD; Sven Fischer; Michael Hartelt; Bahar Kuvaki, MD; Michael Quintel, MD; Peter Neumann, MD, PhD
Author and Funding Information

*From the Department of Anaesthesiology, Emergency, and Critical Care Medicine (Drs. Moerer, Quintel, and Neumann), University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; University of Göttingen (Mr. Fischer and Mr. Hartelt), Göttingen, Germany; Department of Anaethesiology and Critical Care Medicine (Dr. Kuvaki), Balkan Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.

Correspondence to: Peter Neumann, MD, PhD, Department of Anaesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Robert Koch Str. 40, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany; e-mail: pneuman@gwdg.de



Chest. 2006;129(6):1424-1431. doi:10.1378/chest.129.6.1424
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used in intensive care medicine, but only little information is available how different NIV interfaces affect the performance of a ventilatory system. Therefore, we compared delay times, pressure time products (PTPs), and wasted efforts during inspiration among patients receiving invasive ventilation and NIV with a helmet (NIV-h) or a face mask (NIV-fm).

Methods: Using an in vitro lung model capable of simulating spontaneous breathing, gas flow and airway pressure were measured with varying positive end-expiratory pressure and pressure support (PS) levels. Wasted efforts were determined while lung compliance, respiratory rate (RR), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and PS levels were changed.

Results: Delay times were more than twice as long with a helmet compared to NIV-fm or invasive ventilation (p < 0.001), but decreased during NIV-h with increasing CPAP (p < 0.001) and PS levels (p < 0.001). During the initial inspiratory phase, PTP was smaller with NIV-h compared to NIV-fm or invasive ventilation, but not so when a complete inspiration with PS was evaluated. Wasted efforts occurred earlier during NIV-h and were aggravated with rising PS, RR, and compliance.

Conclusions: Although delay times are prolonged during NIV-h, PTP is initially smaller compared to NIV-fm and invasive ventilation, indicating less work of breathing due to the high volume the patient can access. Increasing the CPAP or PS level decreases delay times in NIV-h and should therefore be considered whenever possible. Wasted inspiratory efforts occurred at higher RRs and should carefully be monitored during NIV.

Figures in this Article

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used in the treatment of acute and chronic respiratory failure and during weaning from invasive ventilation.14 NIV has been applied in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure,46 severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema,7 or acute exacerbation of COPD3 in order to decrease the need and the complications of endotracheal intubation.

Noninvasive respiratory support can be applied either as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) alone or as NIV with inspiratory pressure support (NPSV) by means of a nasal or face mask. Problems with the widely used face masks result partially from air leakage,89 discomfort of the patient,10and pressure-related ulcerations of the nose.1112 These problems may limit the duration of use and account for a large proportion of NIV failures. In an attempt to improve NIV tolerance, a helmet was developed that has been successfully used in different clinical situations.5,1316

The increased importance of NIV in intensive care medicine and the new interfaces for its application led to the development of special modes of intensive care ventilators to overcome the problems related to higher gas leakage and dead space. Only limited data are available on how the performance of a ventilatory system is affected by such a helmet or a face mask compared to standard invasive ventilation. With demand flow systems, an inspiratory effort of the patient is necessary to trigger gas flow from the respirator. Thus, the trigger sensitivity of the whole respiratory system is of major importance for the work of breathing.1718 The helmet for NIV may affect the trigger sensitivity due to its large compressible volume. Furthermore, besides the specific settings of the ventilator, individual patient characteristics like compliance and resistance of the respiratory system and respiratory rate (RR) as well as the amount of gas leakage may affect the performance of the system and could potentially result in desynchronization between ventilator and patient. Consequently, during NPSV, the patient may inspire with delayed or even without any support from the ventilator (wasted efforts). Therefore, the aim of this study was to characterize the effects of two commonly used interfaces for NIV, face mask and helmet, on the performance of an ICU ventilator in comparison to invasive ventilation, by the following means: (1) measuring delay times after an inspiratory effort; (2) calculating pressure time products (PTPs) for different inspiratory phases; and (3) analyzing the occurrence of wasted inspiratory efforts during varying trigger sensitivities, pressure support (PS) levels, RRs, and lung compliance values.

Equipment

CPAP and NPSV were performed with a helmet (Starmed Castar R; Mirandola; Modena, Italy) or a face mask (King Systems Corporation; Noblesville, IN) put on a glass head that was connected to a lung model (Fig 1 ). The Castar R Helmet (size medium) has an internal volume of 7.5 L with inflated cuffs. When the head is inserted into the helmet, the internal volume is reduced to approximately 2.4 L due to the volume of the glass head used in this study. Two underarm laces attached to a ring at the lower site of the helmet should prevent the helmet from lifting when it is inflated. A plastic collar fitting around the neck prevents leakage during ventilation. Inspiratory and expiratory tube connectors are fitted in the upper part of the helmet.

The standard face mask (size medium, 125-mL internal gas volume) has an inflatable cushion fitted tightly to the head by dedicated rubber head straps. The cushion was inflated with 10 to 20 mL of air to adhere tightly to the glass head. When the mask is put on the head, the internal gas volume is reduced to approximately 100 mL.

For invasive ventilation, the lung model was connected to the ventilator via an endotracheal tube (Portex, 7.5 mm; Portex Ltd.; Kent, UK). CPAP and PS ventilation were performed using a conventional ICU ventilator used in our ward capable of invasive ventilation and NIV (Evita 4; Dräger Medical; Lübeck, Germany).

Lung Models and Measurements

Gas flow was measured with a pneumotachometer (Fleisch II; Fleisch; Lausanne, Switzerland) at the inspiratory side of the helmet (Fig 1). The ventilator and lung model were connected by standard disposable ventilator tubes (B&B Beatmungsprodukte GmbH; Neunkirchen, Germany). Flow signals were stored on a personal computer using an analog-digital converter, and the signals were integrated to obtain volume during off-line evaluation. The pneumotachometer was calibrated by a mass flowmeter (TSI 4040 D; TSI Inc.; Shoreview, MN). Airway pressure (Paw) was measured at the inspiratory side before the helmet with differential pressure transducers (Sensortechnics; Puchheim, Germany), adjusted meticulously during zero flow conditions before each measurement.

Measurements of Time Delay

To simulate spontaneous breathing, we used a modified lung model (LS1500; Dräger Medical). This lung model consists of an electrically driven pneumatic lung simulator that allows the adjustment of tidal volume, RR, compliance, and resistance.

To analyze the effect of the different interfaces on trigger sensitivity, effort, and the resulting PTPs, we defined three phases during the pressure curve (Fig 2 ): (1) the time interval (Delaytrigger), and the corresponding PTP interval between the initiation of an inspiration and the time point when the deflection of the Paw-time curve showed no further decrease in Paw (PTPtrigger); (2) the time interval from the initiation of an inspiration until the preset positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was reached again (Delaypeep), and the corresponding PTP from the initiation of an inspiration until the preset PEEP was reached again (PTPpeep); and (3) complete inspiration: during PS ventilation (PSV), the complete inspiration including the unassisted (Delaytrigger) and the pressurization segment was added to get the total PTP (PTP calculated over complete inspiration [PTPtot]).

Flow and Paw were recorded with a sampling rate of 200 Hz. For the initiation of single breaths, data acquisition, and data analysis, specially programmed software was used. The following CPAP and PSV settings were studied: (1) PEEP varied from 4 to 16 cm H2O, without PS; (2) PS was set to 5, 10, 15, or 20 cm H2O, respectively, with a PEEP level of 8 cm H2O; and (3) the flow trigger was set to 0.5, 5, or 15 L/min, respectively, with a PEEP of 8 cm H2O and PS of 5 to 15 cm H2O. Data represent the mean of five measurements.

Measurements of Missed Inspiratory Efforts

The influence of the inspiratory PS, RR, and lung compliance on the occurrence of wasted inspiratory efforts was measured using a two-chamber, single-compartment lung model (TTL model 5600I; Michigan Instruments; Grand Rapids, MI). This lung model consists of two chambers connected by a lifting bar (Fig 1). Ventilator and chamber were connected by standard disposable ventilator tubes (B&B Beatmungsprodukte-GmbH; Neunkirchen, Germany). The driving chamber, representing the respiratory muscles, was connected to a ventilator (Evita 4; Dräger Medical), adjusted in volume-controlled mode with an inspiratory time of 1 s, tidal volume of 300 mL, inspiratory flow of 20 L/min, and a varying RR. The pressurization phase (ramp) was set to the shortest possible time interval. The compliance of the driving chamber was set at 20 mL/cm H2O. The resistance of the whole system was kept constant, defined by the used ventilatory tubes and pneumotachometers.

The second chamber, representing the “lung,” was connected to the tested ventilator (Evita 4; Dräger Medical). The lung is passively displaced when the driving chamber is inflated by the ventilator. The following settings were studied: (1) RRs of 10, 20, 30, and 40 breaths per minute; (2) PS levels raised in 1 cm H2O steps every minute until wasted inspiratory efforts occurred or up to a maximum of 30 cm H2O; (3) flow trigger set to 0.5 L/min and 15 L/min, respectively; and (4) respiratory compliance set at 30, 60, and 90 mL/cm H2O, respectively. The occurrence of wasted efforts was detected visually (failure of the ventilator-driven chamber to activate the passively driven lung chamber) and by analyzing the pressure volume curves off-line.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using self-programmed and commercially available software. Data are given as mean ± SD if not stated otherwise. Using a two-way analysis of variance, delay times and PTPs were analyzed for differences between the used interfaces (helmet vs mask vs endotracheal tube) and the applied PEEP or PS levels. If a significant difference was detected, a post hoc analysis using the Scheffe test was performed. A p level < 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Delay Times

During CPAP, Delaytrigger was significantly longer (p < 0.001) if a helmet for NIV was used (range, 144 to 174 ms) compared to the face mask (range, 70 to 74 ms) or invasive ventilation (range, 66 to 76 ms) [Fig 3 ]. Delaypeep was even longer with NIV-h (287 to 397 ms) compared to the other two settings (NIV-fm, 171 to 184 ms; invasive ventilation, 151 to 156 ms, p < 0.001). During NIV-h, delay times were reduced by increasing PEEP from 4 to 8 cm H2O (p < 0.001), whereas an increase > 8 cm H2O had only little further effect on delay times (Fig 3). In contrast, no such effect was observed during NIV-fm or invasive ventilation. Different PS levels were studied using a PEEP of 8 cm H2O because increasing PEEP > 8 cm H2O had only a minor effect on delay times (see above). In similar to CPAP, delay times were significantly longer during NIV-h compared to NIV-fm and invasive ventilation (p < 0.001). However, raising the PS caused a significant reduction of delay times, and this effect was most pronounced in NIV-h (reduction when PS was increased from 5 to 20 cm H2O: Delaytrigger, 37%; Delaypeep, 47%), compared to NIV-fm (Delaytrigger, 19%; Delaypeep, 38%) or invasive ventilation (Delaytrigger, 5%; Delaypeep, 16%).

PTPs

During PS, the time course of Paw differed not only during the trigger phase but also later during pressurization (Fig 4 ). A rapid increase of Paw occurred after the trigger delay during NIV-fm and invasive ventilation, whereas this increase in Paw occurred more slowly during NIV-h. Consequently, PTP was slightly lower during the first 250 ms of inspiration with a helmet compared to NIV-fm and invasive ventilation, but not during the complete inspiration.

Interestingly, not only PTPtot but also PTPtriggerand PTPpeep were significantly influenced by the level of PS (p < 0.001) [Fig 5 ]. Mean PTPtrigger values averaged over all PS settings were significantly lower in NIV-h (mean, − 77 ± 41 cm H2O × s) than NIV-fm (mean, − 239 ± 54 cm H2O × s) or invasive ventilation (mean − 215 ± 15 cm H2O × s) [p < 0.001], and a similar pattern was observed for PTPpeep resulting in a significant difference for all PS settings in the post hoc analysis. However, there was no significant difference of average PTPtot values among NIV-h (mean, 8,744 ± 5,594 cm H2O × s), NIV-fm (mean, 7,161 ± 5,584 cm H2O × s) or invasive ventilation (mean, 9,902 ± 6,659 cm H2O × s), although significant differences between NIV-fm and invasive ventilation were observed at higher PS levels (Fig 5).

Influence of the Flow on Trigger Sensitivity

The influence of different flow triggers were tested with a PEEP of 8 cm H2O and a PS of 5 cm H2O and 15 cm H2O. Different flow triggers (0.5 L/min vs 5 L/min vs 15 L/min) had a significant influence on Delaytrigger, Delaypeep, and the measured PTPs during NIV-h, while the effect on NIV-fm and invasive ventilation was minor. Reducing the flow trigger from 15 to 0.5 L/min caused a 20% reduction of Delaytrigger and a 14% reduction of Delaypeep. PTPtrigger, and PTPpeep were decreased by 42% and 37%, respectively.

Wasted Efforts

The frequency of wasted inspiratory efforts increased with higher RRs, when the level of PS was increased, when the sensitivity of the flow trigger was decreased, and when the respiratory compliance increased (Table 1 ). In addition, the interface used for ventilation influenced the occurrence and frequency of wasted efforts, since wasted efforts were detected at lower PS levels and lower RRs in NIV-h compared to NIV-fm or invasive ventilation (Table 1).

The performance of our modern ICU ventilator was significantly affected by the use of a helmet designed for NIV because delay times were more than twice as long with a helmet compared to a face mask or invasive ventilation. The level of PS and CPAP had a major effect on delay times when a helmet was used, but not with a face mask or during invasive ventilation. In addition, PTP was smaller with NIV-h compared to NIV-fm or invasive ventilation, but not so when a complete inspiration with PS was evaluated. Wasted efforts occurred earlier during NIV-h and were aggravated with rising PS, RR, and compliance.

Technical Aspects

The data presented are based on trials in a mechanical lung model and are highly influenced by the compliance of the used interface and the degree of leakage. Repeated measurements with different helmets showed a relative wide range of measured time intervals due to varying compliance values of these helmets. Thus, delay times and PTPs reported in this study may vary if different helmets or tubing are used. The Delaytrigger was defined as the time interval between the initiation of an inspiration until the deflection of the Paw-time curve showed no further decrease in Paw, because the latter time point can easily and reliably be identified. However, this definition leads to an overestimation of Delaytrigger, since the support of the ventilator actually starts before the nadir of the Paw curve is reached. Even with a sampling rate of 200 Hz, this inflection point could only inconsistently be identified in a preliminary evaluation, and when identified it occurred approximately 5 to 10 ms before the nadir of Paw. Nevertheless, the delay times measured for invasive ventilation are in the range of the quality control data of the manufacturer (Dräger Medical; personal communication, 2004).

Delay Times

The performance of a demand flow system is affected by the interface used: Delaytrigger and Delaypeep were considerably delayed in NIV-h, while the use of a face mask caused only a small increase of the delay times compared to invasive ventilation. This effect was most pronounced with PEEP levels < 8 cm H2O, while increasing PEEP > 8 cm H2O had little further effect on delay times (Fig 3). In contrast to the helmet, the effect of PEEP on delay times was marginal with a face mask or an endotracheal tube. This observation can be explained by the increasing elastance of the helmet with higher PEEP levels, which causes a better pressure transmission and thereby increasing the trigger sensitivity when PEEP was increased with this interface.

With a helmet, the use of PS decreased delay times significantly, whereas this effect was relatively small during NIV-fm or invasive ventilation. These results suggest that the highest PEEP and PS levels clinically indicated and tolerated by the patient should be used when NIV with a helmet is used in order to enhance the trigger sensitivity.

The Delaypeep seems to be important for patients with acute hypoxemic lung failure who continuously need a high alveolar distending pressure. Lungs collapse, and recruitment may occur rapidly on a breath-by-breath basis with time constants not longer than 400 ms.19 Depending on the PEEP and PS levels provided, Delaypeep averaged between 81 ms and 397 ms. This time interval would allow collapse of unstable lung units with fast time constants. However, a decrease in Paw during a spontaneous inspiration is always secondary to an increase in the transpulmonary pressure, and should therefore not cause atelectasis.

Inspiratory Effort

Despite the longer delay times, NIV-h was associated with smaller negative PTPs during the initial phase of inspiration (PTPtrigger and PTPpeep), indicating less work of breathing, than NIV-fm and invasive ventilation. This rather surprising finding is—at first sight—in contrast to the results presented by Chiumello and coworkers,13 who found smaller PTPs indicating less ventilatory support with a helmet than a face mask. However, they calculated PTP after initiation of the inspiratory flow. Thus, the initial pressure drop during Delaytrigger is disregarded by their calculation.,13 In addition, PTP associated with the trigger phase may vary with the respiratory drive of the patient and the specific ventilator used. Without an accessible gas reservoir, the patients’ inspiratory effort causes a negative airway pressure swing before the ventilator responds with an adequately high gas flow. In contrast to an endotracheal tube and a face mask, the helmet contains a large gas reservoir, which can be utilized by the patient during the beginning of an inspiration. Consequently, even though the delay times were shorter during NIV-fm and invasive ventilation compared to NIV-h, the resulting PTPs were higher. This finding could be clinically relevant in patients threatened by respiratory fatigue (eg, patients with neuromuscular diseases or COPD), in whom it is mandatory to minimize the work of breathing.,2021 However, PTP calculated over the complete inspiration (PTPtot) was similar for all three interfaces, since the pressurization during the later phase of inspiration occurred more rapidly with a face mask or invasive ventilation compared to the helmet, as already shown by Chiumello and coworkers.,13

Racca et al22 recently studied the effectiveness of the helmet in a human model of resistive breathing, finding a higher inspiratory effort if the helmet was used compared to the face mask. In line with our data (Fig 5), the less effective unloading of the respiratory muscles in NIV-h was partially explained by the underassistance due to the long inspiratory delay time and the impaired pressurization rate during NIV-h. The pressurization may, however, be dependent on the amount of gas leakage and the maximal inspiratory flow of the respirator. Since gas leakage could almost completely be avoided in our lung model study, this may also offer an explanation for our favorable results regarding PTP with the use of a helmet.

In addition, rebreathing of CO2 with a helmet resulted in an almost doubled minute ventilation during resistive breathing22and was therefore most likely the major cause for the increased work of breathing with the helmet. The problem of limited CO2 elimination has also been described in COPD patients,23 and was analyzed in an experiment24 showing increased CO2 concentrations within the helmet especially with demand flow systems. Both studies,2324 imply that a continuous flow or flow-by system may be beneficial to reduce the inspiratory CO2 concentration and thus the risk of CO2 rebreathing.

Wasted Efforts

The occurrence of unassisted, wasted efforts depends on the RR, level of PS, level of PEEP, and respiratory compliance. Unfortunately, high PS levels, which have been advocated in the previous section, facilitate wasted efforts. In the clinical routine, the majority of patients may be managed with PS levels < 15 cm H2O, a range where wasted efforts were only observed at RR > 30 breaths/min in our lung model. With a respiratory compliance of 60 mL/cm H2O, which is rather typical for ventilated patients, a PS < 8 cm H2O resulted in no unassisted efforts regardless of the RR with NIV-h. In NIV-fm, a PS < 10 cm H2O and in invasive ventilation < 11 cm H2O was possible without wasted efforts with a compliance of 60 mL/cm H2O. In line with these results, Chiumello and coworkers13 did not find missed respiratory efforts using either helmet or face mask in a study with human volunteers. However, the RRs did not exceed 14.9 ± 4.1 breaths/min in this study. At RRs > 20 breaths/min, patient ventilator asynchrony occurred in NIV and invasive ventilation with high PS levels, but increasing the trigger sensitivity reduced the frequency of wasted efforts. In addition, respirators used for NIV should be capable to provide high inspiratory flow rates, since delay times and wasted efforts phenomena may increase if the maximal inspiratory flow is reduced. The ventilator used in our study provides a peak flow of 180 L/min, which is rarely exceeded during spontaneous breathing.

Delaytrigger and Delaypeep are considerably increased in NIH-h compared to a face mask or invasive ventilation. However, the PTPs during the triggering phase were the lowest in NIV-h, presumably as a result of the large air reservoir within the helmet. In order to improve the performance of the system, a minimum PEEP of 6 cm H2O might be helpful in the clinical setting. Adding PS may further shorten the delay times and will hardly promote the occurrence of wasted efforts in most clinical settings. Nevertheless, at high RRs, wasted efforts occurred with all interfaces used. Therefore, a close and careful clinical monitoring of patients during NIV is recommended.

Abbreviations: CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure; Delaypeep = time interval from the initiation of an inspiration until the preset positive end-expiratory pressure was reached again; Delaytrigger = time interval between the initiation of an inspiration until the deflection of the airway pressure-time curve showed no further decrease in airway pressure; NIV = noninvasive ventilation; NIV-fm = noninvasive ventilation with a face mask; NIV-h = noninvasive ventilation with a helmet; NPSV = noninvasive ventilation with inspiratory pressure support; Paw = airway pressure; PEEP = positive end-expiratory pressure; PS = pressure support; PSV = pressure support ventilation; PTP = pressure time product; PTPpeep = corresponding pressure time product from the initiation of an inspiration until the preset positive end-expiratory pressure level was reached again; PTPtot = pressure time product calculated over complete inspiration; PTPtrigger = corresponding pressure time product interval between the initiation of an inspiration and the time point when the deflection of the airway pressure-time curve showed no further decrease in airway pressure; RR = respiratory rate

This study was supported by grants from B & P Beatmungsprodukte-GmbH, Neunkirchen, Germany, and departmental funds. Technical support was provided by TIM GmbH, Göttingen, Germany.

Figure Jump LinkFigure 1. Illustration of the experiment. Left: Lung model 1: modified LS1500 (Dräger Medical), capable of simulating spontaneous breathing. Pressure transducers were installed at the entrance of the helmet in order to measure Delaytrigger and Delaypeep. Right: Lung model 2: Lung model (TTL 5600I; Michigan Instruments) to measure desynchronization between the simulated patient and the lung. Pressure transducers were installed at the entrance of the helmet and at the connection to the lung compartment.Grahic Jump Location
Figure Jump LinkFigure 2. Measured time intervals (Delaytrigger and Delaypeep) as well as the calculated areas PTPtrigger, PTPpeep, and PTPtot are shown.Grahic Jump Location
Figure Jump LinkFigure 3. Influence of the different interfaces (helmet, face mask, endotracheal tube) on the Delaytrigger time. There was no significant effect of PEEP on Delaytrigger in NIV-fm and invasive ventilation and at a PEEP > 8 cm H2O in NIV-h.Grahic Jump Location
Figure Jump LinkFigure 4. Mean pressure course during PSV with NIV-h, NIV-fm, and endotracheal tube (invasive ventilation [IV]).Grahic Jump Location
Figure Jump LinkFigure 5. PTP before beginning of support of the ventilator (PTPtrigger), until set PEEP is reached (PTPpeep) and PTPtot over the whole unassisted and assisted phase at different PS levels.Grahic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 1. Influence of Lung Compliance and Flow Trigger on Occurrence of Wasted Efforts in NIV-fm and NIV-hCompared to Invasive Ventilation, at Different RRs*
* 

The maximal adjustable PS without wasted efforts is shown. The upper limit of PS was set at 30 cm H2O.

Burchardi, H, Kuhlen, R, Schonhofer, B, et al (2002) (German) Non-invasive ventilation: consensus statement on indications, possibilities and use in acute respiratory insufficiency.Anaesthesist51,33-41. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Carlucci, A, Richard, JC, Wysocki, M, et al Noninvasive versus conventional mechanical ventilation: an epidemiologic survey.Am J Respir Crit Care Med2001;163,874-880. [PubMed]
 
Brochard, L, Mancebo, J, Wysocki, M, et al Noninvasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.N Engl J Med1995;333,817-822. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Ferrer, M, Esquinas, A, Arancibia, F, et al Noninvasive ventilation during persistent weaning failure: a randomized controlled trial.Am J Respir Crit Care Med2003;168,70-76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Rabitsch, W, Schellongowski, P, Kostler, WJ, et al (German) Efficacy and tolerability of non-invasive ventilation delivered via a newly developed helmet in immunosuppressed patients with acute respiratory failure.Wien Klin Wochenschr2003;115,590-594. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Rabitsch, W, Staudinger, T, Brugger, SA, et al Successful management of adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood progenitor cell rescue by non-invasive ventilatory support.Bone Marrow Transplant1998;21,1067-1069. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Masip, J, Betbese, AJ, Paez, J, et al Non-invasive pressure support ventilation versus conventional oxygen therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: a randomised trial.Lancet2000;356,2126-2132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Conti, G, Antonelli, M, Navalesi, P, et al Noninvasive vs. conventional mechanical ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after failure of medical treatment in the ward: a randomized trial.Intensive Care Med2002;28,1701-1707. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Navalesi, P, Fanfulla, F, Frigerio, P, et al Physiologic evaluation of noninvasive mechanical ventilation delivered with three types of masks in patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.Crit Care Med2000;28,1785-1790. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Kramer, N, Meyer, TJ, Meharg, J, et al Randomized, prospective trial of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in acute respiratory failure.Am J Respir Crit Care Med1995;151,1799-1806. [PubMed]
 
Gregoretti, C, Confalonieri, M, Navalesi, P, et al Evaluation of patient skin breakdown and comfort with a new face mask for non-invasive ventilation: a multi-center study.Intensive Care Med2002;28,278-284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Meduri, GU, Turner, RE, Abou-Shala, N, et al Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation via face mask: first-line intervention in patients with acute hypercapnic and hypoxemic respiratory failure.Chest1996;109,179-193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Chiumello, D, Pelosi, P, Carlesso, E, et al Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation delivered by helmet vs. standard face mask.Intensive Care Med2003;29,1671-1679. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Antonelli, M, Conti, G, Pelosi, P, et al New treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: noninvasive pressure support ventilation delivered by helmet; a pilot controlled trial.Crit Care Med2002;30,602-608. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Pelosi, P, Severgnini, P, Aspesi, M, et al Non-invasive ventilation delivered by conventional interfaces and helmet in the emergency department.Eur J Emerg Med2003;10,79-86. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Patroniti, N, Foti, G, Manfio, A, et al Head helmet versus face mask for non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure: a physiological study.Intensive Care Med2003;29,1680-1687. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Aslanian, P, el Atrous, S, Isabey, D, et al Effects of flow triggering on breathing effort during partial ventilatory support.Am J Respir Crit Care Med1998;157,135-143. [PubMed]
 
Mancebo, J, Amaro, P, Mollo, JL, et al Comparison of the effects of pressure support ventilation delivered by three different ventilators during weaning from mechanical ventilation.Intensive Care Med1995;21,913-919. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Neumann, P, Berglund, JE, Mondejar, EF, et al Effect of different pressure levels on the dynamics of lung collapse and recruitment in oleic-acid-induced lung injury.Am J Respir Crit Care Med1998;158,1636-1643. [PubMed]
 
Vitacca, M, Nava, S, Confalonieri, M, et al The appropriate setting of noninvasive pressure support ventilation in stable COPD patients.Chest2000;118,1286-1293. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Tobin, M Advances in mechanical ventilation.N Engl J Med2001;344,1986-1996. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Racca, F, Appendini, L, Gregoretti, C, et al Effectiveness of mask and helmet interfaces to deliver noninvasive ventilation in a human model of resistive breathing.J Appl Physiol2005;99,1262-1271. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Antonelli, M, Pennisi, MA, Pelosi, P, et al Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation using a helmet in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Anesthesiology2004;100,16-24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Taccone, P, Hess, D, Caironi, P, et al Continuous positive airway pressure delivered with a “helmet”: effects on carbon dioxide rebreathing.Crit Care Med2004;32,2090-2096. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 

Figures

Figure Jump LinkFigure 1. Illustration of the experiment. Left: Lung model 1: modified LS1500 (Dräger Medical), capable of simulating spontaneous breathing. Pressure transducers were installed at the entrance of the helmet in order to measure Delaytrigger and Delaypeep. Right: Lung model 2: Lung model (TTL 5600I; Michigan Instruments) to measure desynchronization between the simulated patient and the lung. Pressure transducers were installed at the entrance of the helmet and at the connection to the lung compartment.Grahic Jump Location
Figure Jump LinkFigure 2. Measured time intervals (Delaytrigger and Delaypeep) as well as the calculated areas PTPtrigger, PTPpeep, and PTPtot are shown.Grahic Jump Location
Figure Jump LinkFigure 3. Influence of the different interfaces (helmet, face mask, endotracheal tube) on the Delaytrigger time. There was no significant effect of PEEP on Delaytrigger in NIV-fm and invasive ventilation and at a PEEP > 8 cm H2O in NIV-h.Grahic Jump Location
Figure Jump LinkFigure 4. Mean pressure course during PSV with NIV-h, NIV-fm, and endotracheal tube (invasive ventilation [IV]).Grahic Jump Location
Figure Jump LinkFigure 5. PTP before beginning of support of the ventilator (PTPtrigger), until set PEEP is reached (PTPpeep) and PTPtot over the whole unassisted and assisted phase at different PS levels.Grahic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump Location
Table 1. Influence of Lung Compliance and Flow Trigger on Occurrence of Wasted Efforts in NIV-fm and NIV-hCompared to Invasive Ventilation, at Different RRs*
* 

The maximal adjustable PS without wasted efforts is shown. The upper limit of PS was set at 30 cm H2O.

References

Burchardi, H, Kuhlen, R, Schonhofer, B, et al (2002) (German) Non-invasive ventilation: consensus statement on indications, possibilities and use in acute respiratory insufficiency.Anaesthesist51,33-41. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Carlucci, A, Richard, JC, Wysocki, M, et al Noninvasive versus conventional mechanical ventilation: an epidemiologic survey.Am J Respir Crit Care Med2001;163,874-880. [PubMed]
 
Brochard, L, Mancebo, J, Wysocki, M, et al Noninvasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.N Engl J Med1995;333,817-822. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Ferrer, M, Esquinas, A, Arancibia, F, et al Noninvasive ventilation during persistent weaning failure: a randomized controlled trial.Am J Respir Crit Care Med2003;168,70-76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Rabitsch, W, Schellongowski, P, Kostler, WJ, et al (German) Efficacy and tolerability of non-invasive ventilation delivered via a newly developed helmet in immunosuppressed patients with acute respiratory failure.Wien Klin Wochenschr2003;115,590-594. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Rabitsch, W, Staudinger, T, Brugger, SA, et al Successful management of adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood progenitor cell rescue by non-invasive ventilatory support.Bone Marrow Transplant1998;21,1067-1069. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Masip, J, Betbese, AJ, Paez, J, et al Non-invasive pressure support ventilation versus conventional oxygen therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: a randomised trial.Lancet2000;356,2126-2132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Conti, G, Antonelli, M, Navalesi, P, et al Noninvasive vs. conventional mechanical ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after failure of medical treatment in the ward: a randomized trial.Intensive Care Med2002;28,1701-1707. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Navalesi, P, Fanfulla, F, Frigerio, P, et al Physiologic evaluation of noninvasive mechanical ventilation delivered with three types of masks in patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.Crit Care Med2000;28,1785-1790. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Kramer, N, Meyer, TJ, Meharg, J, et al Randomized, prospective trial of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in acute respiratory failure.Am J Respir Crit Care Med1995;151,1799-1806. [PubMed]
 
Gregoretti, C, Confalonieri, M, Navalesi, P, et al Evaluation of patient skin breakdown and comfort with a new face mask for non-invasive ventilation: a multi-center study.Intensive Care Med2002;28,278-284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Meduri, GU, Turner, RE, Abou-Shala, N, et al Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation via face mask: first-line intervention in patients with acute hypercapnic and hypoxemic respiratory failure.Chest1996;109,179-193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Chiumello, D, Pelosi, P, Carlesso, E, et al Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation delivered by helmet vs. standard face mask.Intensive Care Med2003;29,1671-1679. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Antonelli, M, Conti, G, Pelosi, P, et al New treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: noninvasive pressure support ventilation delivered by helmet; a pilot controlled trial.Crit Care Med2002;30,602-608. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Pelosi, P, Severgnini, P, Aspesi, M, et al Non-invasive ventilation delivered by conventional interfaces and helmet in the emergency department.Eur J Emerg Med2003;10,79-86. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Patroniti, N, Foti, G, Manfio, A, et al Head helmet versus face mask for non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure: a physiological study.Intensive Care Med2003;29,1680-1687. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Aslanian, P, el Atrous, S, Isabey, D, et al Effects of flow triggering on breathing effort during partial ventilatory support.Am J Respir Crit Care Med1998;157,135-143. [PubMed]
 
Mancebo, J, Amaro, P, Mollo, JL, et al Comparison of the effects of pressure support ventilation delivered by three different ventilators during weaning from mechanical ventilation.Intensive Care Med1995;21,913-919. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Neumann, P, Berglund, JE, Mondejar, EF, et al Effect of different pressure levels on the dynamics of lung collapse and recruitment in oleic-acid-induced lung injury.Am J Respir Crit Care Med1998;158,1636-1643. [PubMed]
 
Vitacca, M, Nava, S, Confalonieri, M, et al The appropriate setting of noninvasive pressure support ventilation in stable COPD patients.Chest2000;118,1286-1293. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Tobin, M Advances in mechanical ventilation.N Engl J Med2001;344,1986-1996. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Racca, F, Appendini, L, Gregoretti, C, et al Effectiveness of mask and helmet interfaces to deliver noninvasive ventilation in a human model of resistive breathing.J Appl Physiol2005;99,1262-1271. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Antonelli, M, Pennisi, MA, Pelosi, P, et al Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation using a helmet in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Anesthesiology2004;100,16-24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
Taccone, P, Hess, D, Caironi, P, et al Continuous positive airway pressure delivered with a “helmet”: effects on carbon dioxide rebreathing.Crit Care Med2004;32,2090-2096. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 
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.

Related Content

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

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