Intensive Care Unit, Intercommunal Hospital Centre Elbeuf-Louviers-Val de Reuil, Saint Aubin les Elbeuf, France
Medical Intensive Care Department, CHU Rouen, Rouen, France.
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2024 Oct 22;11(1):e002144. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002144.
A wide range of recent ventilators, dedicated or not, is available for non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in respiratory or intensive care units (ICU). We conducted a bench study to compare their technical performances.
Ventilators, including five ICU ventilators with NIV mode on, two dedicated NIV ventilators and one transport ventilator, were evaluated on a test bench for NIV, consisting of a 3D manikin head connected to an ASL 5000 lung model via a non-vented mask. Ventilators were tested according to three simulated lung profiles (normal, obstructive, restrictive), three levels of simulated air leakage (0, 15, 30 L/min), two levels of pressure support (8, 14 cmHO) and two respiratory rates (15, 25 cycles/min).
The global median Asynchrony Index (AI) was higher with ICU ventilators than with dedicated NIV ventilators (4% (0; 76) vs 0% (0; 15), respectively; p<0.05) and different between all ventilators (p<0.001). The AI was higher with ICU ventilators for the normal and restrictive profiles (p<0.01) and not different between ventilators for the obstructive profile. Auto-triggering represented 43% of all patient-ventilator asynchrony. Triggering delay, cycling delay, inspiratory pressure-time product, pressure rise time and pressure at mask were different between all ventilators (p<0.01). Dedicated NIV ventilators induced a lower pressure-time product than ICU and transport ventilators (p<0.01). There was no difference between ventilators for minute ventilation and peak flow.
Despite the integration of NIV algorithms, most recent ICU ventilators appear to be less efficient than dedicated NIV ventilators. Technical performances could change, however, according to the underlying respiratory disease and the level of air leakage.
目前有多种新型呼吸机,包括专用和非专用的呼吸机,可在呼吸和重症监护病房(ICU)中进行无创通气(NIV)。我们进行了一项台架研究,以比较它们的技术性能。
在一个由 3D 人头模型和非通气面罩组成的 NIV 测试台上,对包括带有 NIV 模式的五台 ICU 呼吸机、两台专用 NIV 呼吸机和一台转运呼吸机在内的呼吸机进行了评估。根据三种模拟肺廓清模式(正常、阻塞性、限制性)、三种模拟漏气水平(0、15、30 L/min)、两种压力支持水平(8、14 cmH2O)和两种呼吸频率(15、25 次/分)对呼吸机进行了测试。
与专用 NIV 呼吸机相比,ICU 呼吸机的总体平均异步指数(AI)更高(4%(0;76)与 0%(0;15),p<0.05),且所有呼吸机之间均存在差异(p<0.001)。在正常和限制性肺廓清模式下,ICU 呼吸机的 AI 更高(p<0.01),而在阻塞性肺廓清模式下,呼吸机之间没有差异。自动触发占所有患者-呼吸机异步的 43%。触发延迟、循环延迟、吸气压力-时间乘积、压力上升时间和面罩压力在所有呼吸机之间均存在差异(p<0.01)。专用 NIV 呼吸机的压力-时间乘积低于 ICU 和转运呼吸机(p<0.01)。呼吸机的分钟通气量和峰值流量之间没有差异。
尽管集成了 NIV 算法,但大多数最近的 ICU 呼吸机似乎不如专用 NIV 呼吸机有效。然而,技术性能可能会根据潜在的呼吸疾病和漏气水平而有所不同。