Heat and moisture exchanger vs heated humidifier during long-term mechanical ventilation. A prospective randomized study. Comparison of the effects of heat and moisture exchangers and heated humidifiers on ventilation and gas exchange during weaning trials from mechanical ventilation. Comparison of hydrophobic heat and moisture exchangers with heated humidifier during prolonged mechanical ventilation. Ventilator-associated pneumonia using a heated humidifier or a heat and moisture exchanger: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN88724583]. A randomized clinical trial to compare the effects of a heat and moisture exchanger with a heated humidifying system on the occurrence rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Hyaline membrane disease. A controlled study of inspiratory to expiratory ratio in its management by ventilator. Clinical utility of hygroscopic heat and moisture exchangers in intensive care patients. Safety of combined heat and moisture exchanger filters in long-term mechanical ventilation. Comparing two methods of delivering high-flow gas therapy by nasal cannula following endotracheal extubation: a prospective, randomized, masked, crossover trial.
Adequate humidification of inspired gases with HMEs during long-term MV remains controversial. In this study, a comparison is made between tracheal secretions during long-term MV either with HME or conventional HH. Both the HME and HH groups were similar with respect to age, sex, diagnosis, duration of MV, SAPS and mortality. Temperature of gases in the tracheal tube was lower and the amount of tracheal instillations was greater in the HME group than in the HH group. Tracheal secretions became thicker between day 1 (control) and day 5, in the HME group than in the HH group. Four and two tube occlusions occurred in HME and HH groups, respectively. Tracheal bacterial colonization was similar in the two groups. Given the advantages of HME (reduced nurses' work and financial cost), HME could be routinely used under cautious surveillance and replaced by HH if difficulty in suctioning occurs. Heat and moisture exchangers (HME) are increasingly used to warm and humidify inspired gases in intubated ventilated patients. But these devices add dead space that may alter the alveolar ventilation. This could impair the efficiency of spontaneous ventilation (SV) during weaning trials from mechanical ventilation. Fifteen patients were tested with an HME (Hygrobac-DAR) and a heated humidifier (HH) (Fischer-Paykel MR 450) in a random order during weaning trials in SV with inspiratory pressure support. Minute ventilation VE, tidal volume), and respiratory rate were recorded and arterial blood was sampled for blood gas analysis with each device. The HME gave a significantly greater VE than the HH (9.3 +/- 0.8 L/min vs 8.1 +/- 0.8 L/min; p < 0.005), because of increased respiratory rate (21 +/- 2/min vs 19 +/- 2/min; p < 0.05). Tidal volume was unchanged for HME and HH (470 +/- 32 mL vs 458 +/- 39 mL). The higher PaCO2 with HME than with HH (44 +/- 2 mm Hg vs 42 +/- 2 mm Hg; p < 0.005) revealed an insufficient alveolar ventilation response to the increase in dead space. Arterial Po2 rose with the HME, but not significantly above the HH values (103 +/- 6 mm Hg vs 97 +/- 6 mm Hg; p = 0.055), possibly because of a positive end-expiratory pressure effect of the HME. The need to increase VE in SV when an HME is used should be taken into account during difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation. Inspired gases must be warmed and humidified during mechanical ventilation. In a prospective randomized study we compared the performance of a heated humidifier (HH) (Draegger Aquaport) and a heat and moisture exchanger (HME) (Pall Filter BB 2215). A total of 116 patients requiring mechanical ventilation (Servo 900 C Siemens) were enrolled into the study and were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Patients in group I were ventilated with a traditional breathing circuit with HH and patients in group II using a simplified circuit with HME. Pre-existing and hospital acquired atelectasis and pneumonia, occurrence of endotracheal tube (ET) occlusion and ventilatory parameters (respiratory rate, tidal volume) were studied. No statistical difference was found between groups for each parameter except the greater frequency of ET occlusions in the II group (0/61 vs 9/55) (p = 0.0008). Pall Filter (PF), a hydrophobic filter, humidifies the dry gases from the condensed water which is put down on the HME surfaces during cooling of saturated expired gases. This purely physical property is linked to the magnitude of the thermic gradient between the expired gases and the ambiant temperature. Performance impairment of PF in our study might be due to high ambiant temperature in the intensive care unit (usually around 28 degrees C) which reduces thermic gradient and water exchanges. We conclude that efficiency of PF may be weak in some conditions of ambiant temperature. Some guidelines to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) do not establish a recommendation for the preferential use of either heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) or heated humidifiers (HHs), while other guidelines clearly advocate the use of HMEs. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of VAP associated with HHs or HMEs.
                A randomized study was conducted in the intensive care unit of a university hospital involving patients expected to require mechanical ventilation for >5 days. Patients were assigned to two groups; one group received HH and the other group received HME. Tracheal aspirate samples were obtained on endotracheal intubation, then twice a week, and finally on extubation, in order to diagnose VAP. Throat swabs were taken on admission to the intensive care unit, then twice a week, and finally at discharge from the intensive care unit in order to classify VAP as primary endogenous, secondary endogenous, or exogenous.
                A total of 120 patients were assigned to HMEs (60 patients) and HHs (60 patients); 16 patients received mechanical ventilation for less than five days and were excluded from the analysis. Data analysis of the remaining 104 patients (53 HMEs and 51 HHs) showed no significant differences between groups regarding sex, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, pre-VAP use of antibiotics, days on mechanical ventilation, and diagnosis group. VAP was found in eight of 51 (15.69%) patients in the HH group and in 21 of 53 (39.62%) patients in the HME group (P = 0.006). The median time free of VAP was 20 days (95% confidence interval, 13.34-26.66) for the HH group and was 42 days (95% confidence interval, 35.62-48.37) for the HME group (P <0.001). Cox regression analysis showed the HME as a risk factor for VAP (hazard rate, 16.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.54-58.04; P < 0.001).
                The patients mechanically ventilated during more than 5 days developed a lower incidence of VAP with a heated humidifier than heat and moisture exchanger. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of heat and moisture exchanger filters with heated humidifying systems in the mechanical ventilator circuit on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and bacterial colonization.
                Two hundred and forty-three consecutive patients who required mechanical ventilation for 48 hours or more in the adult intensive care unit were randomized to either a heat and moisture exchanger (HME) or a heated humidifying breathing circuit.
                The VAP rate among the group with HME was 11.4%; the rate among the group with heated humidifying system (HHS) was 15.8%. The difference was not statistically significant. Approximately 68% of the patients in the HME group had no pathogen isolated compared with 50% of the patients in the HHS group. This difference was statistically significant (P =.006). However, the distribution of the pathogens among those patients who had the isolated pathogens was mostly identical in the 2 groups.
                Even though the study did not find HME to be significantly advantageous over the HHS, in as much as VAP rate is concerned, other advantages such as reduced nurses workload, reduced financial cost, and better safety made HME a more favorable device for use in our adult intensive care unit. Sixty-nine neonates with severe hyaline membrane disease (HMD) were mechanically ventilated using either a 1:2 or a 2:1 inspiratory to expiratory (I/E) ratio. Survivors in the 2:1 group required a lower fraction of oxygen in the inspired air (FiO2) and lower end-expiratory pressure to achieve satisfactory oxygenation. During the first week of life, time of exposure to FiO2 greater than 0.60 while being mechanically ventilated was 29.7 +/- 7.5 hours for the 1:2 group and 6.6 +/- 2,7 hours for the 2:1 group, while time of exposure to end-expiratory pressure greater than 3 cm H2O was 49.4 +/- 7.9 hours for the 1:2 group and 13.4 +/- 7.4 hours for the 2:1 group. Mortality and the incidence of air leak, patent ductus arteriosus, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and pulmonary hemorrhage were not different for the two groups. Using an increased I/E ratio during the acute phase of HMD improved oxygenation but did not alter morbidity or mortality. To compare the degree of bacterial circuit colonization, frequency of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), character of respiratory secretions, rewarming of hypothermic patients, disposable costs, and air flow resistance in intensive care patients ventilated using either a heat and moisture exchanger (HME) or hot water (HW) humidifier circuit.
                A prospective, randomized blinded trial of patients in the intensive care unit undergoing mechanical ventilation.
                A metropolitan teaching hospital.
                One hundred sixteen patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for a minimum period of 48 hrs were enrolled.
                Patients were randomized to three ventilation groups using a) an HW circuit with a 2-day circuit change (n = 41); or b) a bacterial-viral filtering HME in the circuit, with either a 2-day (n = 42); or c) a 4-day circuit change (n = 33).
                Circuit colonization was assessed using quantitative culture of washings taken from the circuit tubing and semiquantitative culture of swabs from the Y connectors. Sixty-seven percent of HW circuits became contaminated compared with 12% in the two HME groups (p < .0001). Median colony counts were lower in the HME groups (p < .0001). If circuits at first circuit change were contaminated in the HW group, 89% of subsequent circuit changes became contaminated compared with 0% and 25% for the 2- and 4-day HME groups, respectively. The frequency of VAP, the time to resolution of admission hypothermia, and the volume and fluidity of secretions were similar for all groups. The resistance of the HME after 24 hrs of use was < 0.025 cm H2O/L at gas flows of 40 L/min. HME use resulted in a cost reduction of $1.48 (Australian)/day.
                Circuits with a bacterial-viral filtering HME are less readily colonized by bacteria. Contamination is a random event. Humidification technique has no influence on the frequency rate of VAP, the effectiveness of rewarming, nor the character of the respiratory secretions. Breathing resistance is generally low and disposable costs are reduced when an HME is used. To evaluate the safety of a combined heat and moisture exchanger filter (HMEF) for the conditioning of inspired gas in long-term mechanical ventilation (MV).
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Medical ICU in a large teaching hospital.
                One hundred fifteen consecutive patients who required > or = 48 h of MV.
                Patients were randomized at intubation time (day 1) to receive inspired gas conditioned either by a water-bath humidifier heated at 32 degrees C (HWBH) or by an HMEF (Hygroster; DAR; Mirandola, Italy).
                The two study groups were comparable in terms of primary pathologic condition at the time of hospital admission, disease severity as measured by the Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and ICU mortality. They did not differ with respect to ventilator days per patient (mean +/- SD: HMEF, 7.6 +/- 6.5; HWBH, 7.8 +/- 5.8), incidence of endotracheal tube obstruction (HMEF, 0/59; HWBH, 1/56), and incidence of hypothermic episodes (HMEF, five; HWBH, two). In 41 patients receiving MV for > or = 5 days, the morphologic integrity of respiratory epithelium was evaluated on day 1 and day 5, using a cytologic examination of tracheal aspirate smears. The state of ciliated epithelium was scored on a scale from 0 (poorest integrity) to 1,200 (maximum integrity), according to a well-described method. In both patient groups, the scores slightly but significantly decreased from day 1 to day 5 (mean +/- SD: HWBH, from 787 +/- 104 to 745 +/- 88; HMEF, from 813 +/- 79 to 739 +/- 62; p < 0.01 for both groups); there were no statistically significant differences between groups.
                These data indicate acceptable safety of HMEFs of the type used in the present study for long-term mechanical ventilation. We compared two methods of delivering high-flow gas therapy by nasal cannula, applied immediately after planned endotracheal extubations of NICU patients.
                Thirty NICU patients who were about to be extubated from mechanical ventilation were randomized into two groups; Group 1 received Vapotherm for the first 24 h after extubation, then standard high-flow nasal cannula for the next 24 h, and Group 2 received standard high-flow therapy for the first 24 h, then Vapotherm for the next 24 h. At 24 h after extubation and again 48 h after extubation, a neonatologist who was not aware which modality the patient had been receiving examined the nasal mucosa and applied a scoring system. A research nurse who was unaware of the modality abstracted respiratory rates and respiratory effort scores from a specific study-bedside record. The experimental design was such that a patient could 'fail' extubation either by reintubation for mechanical ventilation, or by rescue to the opposite modality before completing the 24-h test period.
                Fifteen patients were randomized to Group 1 and 15 to Group 2. No differences were apparent between the groups in birth weight, gestational age, age at study entry, gender or underlying pulmonary disorder. Respiratory rates were similar while on Vapotherm (52+/-13 breaths/min, mean+/-s.d.) and high-flow (54+/-14/min). At 24 h after starting the modality, those on Vapotherm had more normal examinations of the nasal mucosa (2.7+/-1.2 vs 7.8+/-1.7, P < 0.0005) and lower respiratory effort scores (1.2+/-0.6 vs 2.0+/-0.9, P < 0.05) than did those on high-flow. No patients failed while on Vapotherm, but seven failed while on high-flow (two reintubations and five rescue switches to Vapotherm, P < 0.005).
                Among NICU patients immediately following extubation, Vapotherm performed better than a standard high-flow nasal cannula in maintaining a normal appearing nasal mucosa, a lower respiratory effort score, and averting reintubation.
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.