Kelly Margaret, Gillies Donna, Todd David A, Lockwood Catherine
Nursing Research & Practice Development Unit, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Locked Bag 4001, Westmead, NSW, Australia, 2145.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Apr 14(4):CD004711. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004711.pub2.
BACKGROUND: Humidification by artificial means must be provided when the upper airway is bypassed during mechanical ventilation. Heated humidification (HH) and heat and moisture exchangers (HME) are the most commonly used types of artificial humidification in this situation. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether HHs or HMEs are more effective in preventing mortality and other complications in people who are mechanically ventilated. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4) and MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (January, 2010) to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) to heated humidifiers (HHs) in mechanically ventilated adults and children. We included randomized crossover studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the quality of each study and extracted the relevant data. Where appropriate, results from relevant studies were meta-analysed for individual outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 trials with 2833 participants, 25 studies were parallel group design (n = 2710) and eight crossover design (n = 123). Only three included studies reported data for infants or children. There was no overall effect on artificial airway occlusion, mortality, pneumonia, or respiratory complications; however, the PaCO(2) and minute ventilation were increased when HMEs were compared to HHs and body temperature was lower. The cost of HMEs was lower in all studies that reported this outcome. There was some evidence that hydrophobic HMEs may reduce the risk of pneumonia and that blockages of artificial airways may be increased with the use of HMEs in certain subgroups of patients. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence of an overall difference between HMEs and HHs. However, hydrophobic HMEs may reduce the risk of pneumonia and the use of an HME may increase artificial airway occlusion in certain subgroups of patients. Therefore, HMEs may not be suitable for patients with limited respiratory reserve or prone to airway blockage. Further research is needed relating to hydrophobic versus hygroscopic HMEs and the use of HMEs in the paediatric and neonatal populations. As the design of HMEs evolves, evaluation of new generation HMEs will also need to be undertaken.
背景:在机械通气过程中,当上呼吸道被绕过的时候,必须采用人工手段进行湿化。加热湿化(HH)和热湿交换器(HME)是这种情况下最常用的人工湿化类型。 目的:确定加热湿化器(HH)和热湿交换器(HME)在预防机械通气患者的死亡及其他并发症方面是否更有效。 检索策略:我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(《Cochrane图书馆》2010年第4期)以及MEDLINE、EMBASE和CINAHL(2010年1月),以识别相关的随机对照试验(RCT)。 选择标准:我们纳入了在机械通气的成人和儿童中比较热湿交换器(HME)和加热湿化器(HH)的随机对照试验。我们纳入了随机交叉研究。 数据收集与分析:我们评估了每项研究的质量并提取了相关数据。在适当情况下,对相关研究的结果进行了荟萃分析以得出个体结果。 主要结果:我们纳入了33项试验,共2833名参与者,25项研究为平行组设计(n = 2710),8项为交叉设计(n = 123)。仅3项纳入研究报告了婴儿或儿童的数据。在人工气道阻塞、死亡率、肺炎或呼吸并发症方面没有总体影响;然而,与加热湿化器(HH)相比,使用热湿交换器(HME)时动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO₂)和分钟通气量增加,且体温较低。在所有报告此结果的研究中,热湿交换器(HME)的成本较低。有一些证据表明,疏水性热湿交换器(HME)可能会降低肺炎风险,并且在某些患者亚组中使用热湿交换器(HME)可能会增加人工气道阻塞的风险。 作者结论:几乎没有证据表明热湿交换器(HME)和加热湿化器(HH)之间存在总体差异。然而,疏水性热湿交换器(HME)可能会降低肺炎风险,并且在某些患者亚组中使用热湿交换器(HME)可能会增加人工气道阻塞的风险。因此,热湿交换器(HME)可能不适用于呼吸储备有限或易于气道阻塞的患者。需要进一步研究疏水性与吸湿性热湿交换器(HME)以及热湿交换器(HME)在儿科和新生儿人群中的使用情况。随着热湿交换器(HMEs)设计的发展,也需要对新一代热湿交换器(HMEs)进行评估。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010-4-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-9-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-6-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-10-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-10-25
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-8-16
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-10-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-1-30
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021-5
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2018-3
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-9-14
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2017-8
Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2017-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-11-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-4-13