Vanderbroucke-Grauls C M, Teeuw K B, Ballemans K, Lavooij C, Cornelisse P B, Verhoef J
Department of Clinical Microbiology, University Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J Hosp Infect. 1995 Jan;29(1):45-56. doi: 10.1016/0195-6701(95)90292-9.
Four devices used for filtration of microorganisms and/or for heating and moistening the ventilated air during mechanical ventilation were evaluated. This evaluation included measurement of bacterial and viral removal efficiency, heat and moisture exchange properties, dead space and air flow resistance. The devices included: Pall BB50T and DAR Sterivent (filtration devices); DAR Hygrobac and Gibeck Humid-vent [heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs)]. The two devices which are primarily conceived as filters, had the highest bacterial and viral removal efficiency (titre reduction of 10(5)-10(6) for bacteria and of 10(4)-10(5) for viruses), while removal efficiencies of the HME devices were lower: titre reduction of 10(4) for bacteria and 10(1)-10(3) for viruses. As expected, heat and moisture output of HMEs was better than that of filters. In mechanical ventilation, dead space and air flow resistance are important properties of devices, which might disturb efficient ventilation. There were only minor differences in dead space and air flow resistance. Resistance to airflow in the HMEs was increased by nebulization of medication (mesna) unlike that of the filters.
对四种用于机械通气期间过滤微生物和/或加热及加湿通气空气的设备进行了评估。该评估包括测量细菌和病毒去除效率、热湿交换特性、死腔和气流阻力。这些设备包括：颇尔BB50T和DAR Sterivent（过滤设备）；DAR Hygrobac和吉贝克Humid-vent[热湿交换器（HMEs）]。两种主要设计为过滤器的设备具有最高的细菌和病毒去除效率（细菌滴度降低10(5)-10(6)，病毒滴度降低10(4)-10(5)），而HME设备的去除效率较低：细菌滴度降低10(4)，病毒滴度降低10(1)-10(3)。正如预期的那样，HMEs的热湿输出优于过滤器。在机械通气中，死腔和气流阻力是设备的重要特性，可能会干扰有效通气。死腔和气流阻力只有微小差异。与过滤器不同，通过雾化药物（美司钠）会增加HMEs中的气流阻力。
