Comparative evaluation of three total full-face masks for delivering Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation (NPPV): a bench study.

Historically, the oro-nasal mask has been the preferred interface to deliver Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation (NPPV) in critically ill patients. To overcome the problems related to air leaks and discomfort, Total Full-face masks have been designed. No study has comparatively evaluated the performance of the total Full-face masks available.The aim of this bench study was to evaluate the influence of three largely diffuse models of total Full -face masks on patient-ventilator synchrony and performance during pressure support ventilation. NPPV was applied to a mannequin, connected to an active test lung through three largely diffuse Full-face masks: Dimar Full-face mask (DFFM), Performax Full-face mask (RFFM) and Pulmodyne Full-face mask (PFFM).The performance analysis showed that the ΔPtrigger was significantly lower with PFFM (p < 0.05) at 20 breaths/min (RRsim) at both pressure support (iPS) levels applied, while, at RRsim 30, DFFM had the longest ΔPtrigger compared to the other 2 total full face masks (p < 0.05). At all ventilator settings, the PTP200 was significantly shorter with DFFM than with the other two total full-face masks (p < 0.05). In terms of PTP500 ideal index (%), we did not observe significant differences between the interfaces tested.The PFFM demonstrated the best performance and synchrony at low respiratory rates, but when the respiratory rate increased, no difference between all tested total full-face masks was reported.