Anesth Analg. 2010 Oct;111(4):1072. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181efb538.
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 (HMEs) 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. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing HMEs to 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-analyzed for individual outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 trials with 2833 participants; 25 studies were parallel group design (n = 2710) and 8 crossover design (n = 123). Only 3 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 HMEs 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 pediatric and neonatal populations. As the design of HMEs evolves, evaluation of new generation HMEs will also need to be undertaken.
背景:机械通气时,若上呼吸道被旁路,必须采用人工方法进行加湿。在这种情况下,加热湿化(HH)和热和湿气交换器(HMEs)是最常用的两种人工加湿方法。
目的:确定在机械通气的患者中,HH 与 HME 哪种方法更能有效预防死亡率和其他并发症。
检索策略:我们检索了 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(The Cochrane Library 2010,Issue 4)、MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 CINAHL(2010 年 1 月),以确定相关的随机对照试验。
选择标准:我们纳入了将 HME 与 HH 比较用于机械通气成人和儿童的随机对照试验。我们纳入了随机交叉研究。
数据收集和分析:我们评估了每项研究的质量并提取了相关数据。在适当的情况下,对相关研究的结果进行了个体结局的荟萃分析。
主要结果:我们纳入了 33 项试验,共计 2833 名参与者;其中 25 项研究为平行组设计(n = 2710),8 项为交叉设计(n = 123)。仅有 3 项研究报告了婴儿或儿童的数据。在人工气道堵塞、死亡率、肺炎或呼吸并发症方面,HH 与 HME 之间没有总体影响;然而,与 HH 相比,使用 HME 时 PaCO(2)和分钟通气量增加,体温降低。在所有报告该结局的研究中,HME 的成本均较低。有一些证据表明,疏水性 HME 可能降低肺炎的风险,并且在某些特定患者亚组中,使用 HME 可能会增加人工气道堵塞的风险。
作者结论:HH 与 HME 之间总体差异不大。然而,疏水性 HME 可能降低肺炎的风险,并且在某些特定患者亚组中,使用 HME 可能会增加人工气道堵塞的风险。因此,HME 可能不适合呼吸储备有限或易于气道堵塞的患者。需要进一步研究疏水性与亲水性 HME 以及 HME 在儿科和新生儿人群中的应用。随着 HME 设计的发展,还需要对新一代 HME 进行评估。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010-4-14
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-9-14
Zhongguo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2011-9
Med Sci (Basel). 2024-5-15
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-9-14