Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trial.
Fernanda Dos Reis Ferreira, João Carlos Ferrari Correa, Eduardo Storopoli, Diego Restivo Faria, Karina Cassaro, Natália Feitosa da Hora, Raphael Ritti, Rafael Akira Becker, Simone Dal Corso, Ivan Peres Costa, Luciana Maria Malosá Sampaio
{"title":"Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Fernanda Dos Reis Ferreira, João Carlos Ferrari Correa, Eduardo Storopoli, Diego Restivo Faria, Karina Cassaro, Natália Feitosa da Hora, Raphael Ritti, Rafael Akira Becker, Simone Dal Corso, Ivan Peres Costa, Luciana Maria Malosá Sampaio","doi":"10.5114/aoms/183947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two methods for non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) - using a helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve versus a traditional mechanical ventilator.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We conducted a single-center randomized clinical trial involving 100 adult SARS-CoV-2 patients in a specialized private hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one using the helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve and the other employing conventional mechanical ventilation. Our study included participant selection, blood gas analysis, assessment of respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, modified Borg scale scores, and a visual analog scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study showed no significant difference in intubation rates between the mechanical ventilation (54.3%) and helmet interface with flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve (46.8%) groups (<i>p</i> = 0.37). Additionally, the helmet group had a shorter average duration of use (3.4 ±1.6 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (4.0 ±1.9 days). The helmet group also had a shorter average hospitalization duration (15.9 ±7.9 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (17.1 ±9.5 days).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This single-center randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant differences between the two methods of non-invasive ventilation. Implications for clinical practice: using the helmet interface with the flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve can simplify device installation, potentially reducing the need for intubation, making it a valuable tool for nurses and physiotherapists in daily clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":8278,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Medical Science","volume":"20 5","pages":"1538-1546"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11623150/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms/183947","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two methods for non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) - using a helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve versus a traditional mechanical ventilator.
Material and methods: We conducted a single-center randomized clinical trial involving 100 adult SARS-CoV-2 patients in a specialized private hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one using the helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve and the other employing conventional mechanical ventilation. Our study included participant selection, blood gas analysis, assessment of respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, modified Borg scale scores, and a visual analog scale.
Results: The study showed no significant difference in intubation rates between the mechanical ventilation (54.3%) and helmet interface with flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve (46.8%) groups (p = 0.37). Additionally, the helmet group had a shorter average duration of use (3.4 ±1.6 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (4.0 ±1.9 days). The helmet group also had a shorter average hospitalization duration (15.9 ±7.9 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (17.1 ±9.5 days).
Conclusions: This single-center randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant differences between the two methods of non-invasive ventilation. Implications for clinical practice: using the helmet interface with the flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve can simplify device installation, potentially reducing the need for intubation, making it a valuable tool for nurses and physiotherapists in daily clinical practice.
期刊介绍：
Archives of Medical Science (AMS) publishes high quality original articles and reviews of recognized scientists that deal with all scientific medicine. AMS opens the possibilities for young, capable scientists. The journal would like to give them a chance to have a publication following matter-of-fact, professional review by outstanding, famous medical scientists. Thanks to that they will have an opportunity to present their study results and/or receive useful advice about the mistakes they have made so far.
The second equally important aim is a presentation of review manuscripts of recognized scientists about the educational capacity, in order that young scientists, often at the beginning of their scientific carrier, could constantly deepen their medical knowledge and be up-to-date with current guidelines and trends in world-wide medicine. The fact that our educational articles are written by world-famous scientists determines their innovation and the highest quality.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
