Whitelock David E, de Beer David A H
Department of Anaesthesia, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, Great Ormond Street, London WC1N 3JH, UK.
Respir Care Clin N Am. 2006 Jun;12(2):307-20. doi: 10.1016/j.rcc.2006.03.006.
The use of breathing system filters may be particularly beneficial in small infants, compared with older children and adults, because of their greater need for warming and humidification of inspired gases as well as their increased susceptibility to lower respiratory tract contamination. The only evidence available regarding the safety and efficacy of breathing system filters in small infants comes from a few small studies conducted on intensive care patients, however. These studies have suggested that the use of HME filters may be effective in preserving body temperature and airway humidity while decreasing fluid build-up in the breathing system and therefore reducing breathing system contamination. Nonetheless, the use of filters has not been shown to decrease the incidence of VAP in small infants. In contrast,their use in adult intensive care patients, particularly those requiring prolonged ventilation, has been associated with a decrease in the infection rate. The use of breathing system filters is not associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of complications, despite the potentially greater hazards associated with their use in small infants compared with older children and adults. In practice the use of breathing system filters, even in small infants, rarely causes any major clinical problems that cannot be prevented with a high degree of vigilance and appropriate monitoring. This vigilance is particularly important to prevent the serious morbidity and even mortality that may result from filter occlusion; when subjected to excessive loading, smaller filters are more prone to obstruction than are their larger counterparts. The increased resistance provided by smaller filters should not translate into a clinically significant increase in the work of breathing during general anesthesia, because it is common practice to ventilate small infants for all but the shortest of surgical procedures. An increase in the work of breathing may, however, become more significant when spontaneous ventilation is established at the end of a surgical case. It remains unclear whether the use of filters allows the safe reuse of breathing systems in small infants. None of the breathing system filters tested by the MHRA had a zero-percent penetrance to sodium chloride particles, and pediatric filters generally had a higher penetrance than their adult counterparts. This finding suggests that there is a potential, albeit small, risk of cross-contamination. The exact risk depends on the type of filter used and on the particular patient undergoing anesthesia or ventilation in the ICU. Although no evidence has been published showing cross-infection occurring when any filter has been used in the anesthesia breathing system for adults or small infants, the level of filtration performance required to allow the safe reuse of anesthesia breathing systems in small infants remains unanswered. Because the incidence of lower respiratory tract colonization is low in unselected small infants, a study with sufficient power to answer accurately the questions regarding the safety of breathing system reuse in small infants would be very difficult to conduct. The effect of filters on post operative infection rates may in fact be of less significance than the adoption of adequate standards of hygiene (eg, hand washing and the use of gloves).Further research is needed to determine if the variations in filtration efficiency demonstrated by the MHRA have any effects on patient outcome. This research might allow setting an effective minimal level of filtration performance for breathing system filters for use in small infants. On a practical note, the publication of the MHRA assessments of breathing system filters provides a useful tool for objective comparison of the different filters available for use in small infants, even though the relevance of the flow used to test pediatric filters has been criticized. Individual institutions will need to formulate policies for the use of breathing system filters for clinical reasons as well as for cost containment or logistical reasons. These policies should be within the frameworks set out by their regulatory agencies. Any problems arising from policies that are in breach of these frame works will remain the responsibility of the individual clinicians caring for these small infants.
与大龄儿童和成人相比,呼吸回路过滤器对小婴儿可能特别有益,因为小婴儿对吸入气体的加温和湿化需求更大,且下呼吸道受污染的易感性增加。然而,目前关于呼吸回路过滤器在小婴儿中安全性和有效性的唯一证据来自对重症监护患者进行的一些小型研究。这些研究表明,使用热湿交换(HME)过滤器可能有助于维持体温和气道湿度,同时减少呼吸回路中的积液,从而降低呼吸回路污染。尽管如此,尚未证明使用过滤器可降低小婴儿呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)的发生率。相比之下,在成人重症监护患者中使用呼吸回路过滤器,尤其是那些需要长时间通气的患者,与感染率降低有关。尽管与在大龄儿童和成人中使用相比,在小婴儿中使用呼吸回路过滤器可能存在更大的潜在风险,但使用呼吸回路过滤器与并发症发生率的统计学显著增加无关。在实际应用中,即使在小婴儿中使用呼吸回路过滤器,只要保持高度警惕并进行适当监测,很少会引发任何无法预防的重大临床问题。这种警惕对于预防因过滤器堵塞可能导致的严重发病甚至死亡尤为重要;当承受过大负荷时,较小的过滤器比较大的过滤器更容易堵塞。较小过滤器增加的阻力在全身麻醉期间不应导致呼吸功出现临床上显著的增加,因为对于除最短手术外的所有手术,对小婴儿进行机械通气是常规操作。然而,在手术结束时建立自主通气时,呼吸功的增加可能会变得更加显著。目前尚不清楚使用过滤器是否允许在小婴儿中安全重复使用呼吸回路。药品和医疗产品监管局(MHRA)测试的所有呼吸回路过滤器对氯化钠颗粒的穿透率均不为零,而且儿科过滤器的穿透率通常高于成人过滤器。这一发现表明,尽管风险很小,但存在交叉污染的可能性。确切风险取决于所使用的过滤器类型以及在重症监护病房接受麻醉或通气的特定患者。尽管尚未发表证据表明在成人或小婴儿的麻醉呼吸回路中使用任何过滤器时会发生交叉感染,但小婴儿麻醉呼吸回路安全重复使用所需的过滤性能水平仍未明确。由于在未筛选的小婴儿中下呼吸道定植的发生率较低,因此很难开展一项有足够效力准确回答小婴儿呼吸回路重复使用安全性问题的研究。实际上,过滤器对术后感染率的影响可能不如采用适当的卫生标准(如洗手和使用手套)重要。需要进一步研究以确定MHRA证明的过滤效率差异是否对患者预后有任何影响。这项研究可能有助于为小婴儿使用的呼吸回路过滤器设定有效的最低过滤性能水平。实际上,MHRA对呼吸回路过滤器的评估报告提供了一个有用的工具,可用于客观比较可供小婴儿使用的不同过滤器,尽管用于测试儿科过滤器的气流相关性受到了批评。各机构需要出于临床原因以及成本控制或后勤原因,制定呼吸回路过滤器的使用政策。这些政策应在其监管机构规定的框架内。违反这些框架的政策所引发的任何问题仍将由照顾这些小婴儿的个体临床医生负责。