The use of filters with small infants.

David E Whitelock, David A H de Beer
{"title":"The use of filters with small infants.","authors":"David E Whitelock,&nbsp;David A H de Beer","doi":"10.1016/j.rcc.2006.03.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of breathing system filters may be particularly beneficial in small infants, compared with older children and adults, because of their greater need for warming and humidification of inspired gases as well as their increased susceptibility to lower respiratory tract contamination. The only evidence available regarding the safety and efficacy of breathing system filters in small infants comes from a few small studies conducted on intensive care patients, however. These studies have suggested that the use of HME filters may be effective in preserving body temperature and airway humidity while decreasing fluid build-up in the breathing system and therefore reducing breathing system contamination. Nonetheless, the use of filters has not been shown to decrease the incidence of VAP in small infants. In contrast,their use in adult intensive care patients, particularly those requiring prolonged ventilation, has been associated with a decrease in the infection rate. The use of breathing system filters is not associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of complications, despite the potentially greater hazards associated with their use in small infants compared with older children and adults. In practice the use of breathing system filters, even in small infants, rarely causes any major clinical problems that cannot be prevented with a high degree of vigilance and appropriate monitoring. This vigilance is particularly important to prevent the serious morbidity and even mortality that may result from filter occlusion; when subjected to excessive loading, smaller filters are more prone to obstruction than are their larger counterparts. The increased resistance provided by smaller filters should not translate into a clinically significant increase in the work of breathing during general anesthesia, because it is common practice to ventilate small infants for all but the shortest of surgical procedures. An increase in the work of breathing may, however, become more significant when spontaneous ventilation is established at the end of a surgical case. It remains unclear whether the use of filters allows the safe reuse of breathing systems in small infants. None of the breathing system filters tested by the MHRA had a zero-percent penetrance to sodium chloride particles, and pediatric filters generally had a higher penetrance than their adult counterparts. This finding suggests that there is a potential, albeit small, risk of cross-contamination. The exact risk depends on the type of filter used and on the particular patient undergoing anesthesia or ventilation in the ICU. Although no evidence has been published showing cross-infection occurring when any filter has been used in the anesthesia breathing system for adults or small infants, the level of filtration performance required to allow the safe reuse of anesthesia breathing systems in small infants remains unanswered. Because the incidence of lower respiratory tract colonization is low in unselected small infants, a study with sufficient power to answer accurately the questions regarding the safety of breathing system reuse in small infants would be very difficult to conduct. The effect of filters on post operative infection rates may in fact be of less significance than the adoption of adequate standards of hygiene (eg, hand washing and the use of gloves).Further research is needed to determine if the variations in filtration efficiency demonstrated by the MHRA have any effects on patient outcome. This research might allow setting an effective minimal level of filtration performance for breathing system filters for use in small infants. On a practical note, the publication of the MHRA assessments of breathing system filters provides a useful tool for objective comparison of the different filters available for use in small infants, even though the relevance of the flow used to test pediatric filters has been criticized. Individual institutions will need to formulate policies for the use of breathing system filters for clinical reasons as well as for cost containment or logistical reasons. These policies should be within the frameworks set out by their regulatory agencies. Any problems arising from policies that are in breach of these frame works will remain the responsibility of the individual clinicians caring for these small infants.</p>","PeriodicalId":79530,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care clinics of North America","volume":"12 2","pages":"307-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care clinics of North America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcc.2006.03.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The use of breathing system filters may be particularly beneficial in small infants, compared with older children and adults, because of their greater need for warming and humidification of inspired gases as well as their increased susceptibility to lower respiratory tract contamination. The only evidence available regarding the safety and efficacy of breathing system filters in small infants comes from a few small studies conducted on intensive care patients, however. These studies have suggested that the use of HME filters may be effective in preserving body temperature and airway humidity while decreasing fluid build-up in the breathing system and therefore reducing breathing system contamination. Nonetheless, the use of filters has not been shown to decrease the incidence of VAP in small infants. In contrast,their use in adult intensive care patients, particularly those requiring prolonged ventilation, has been associated with a decrease in the infection rate. The use of breathing system filters is not associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of complications, despite the potentially greater hazards associated with their use in small infants compared with older children and adults. In practice the use of breathing system filters, even in small infants, rarely causes any major clinical problems that cannot be prevented with a high degree of vigilance and appropriate monitoring. This vigilance is particularly important to prevent the serious morbidity and even mortality that may result from filter occlusion; when subjected to excessive loading, smaller filters are more prone to obstruction than are their larger counterparts. The increased resistance provided by smaller filters should not translate into a clinically significant increase in the work of breathing during general anesthesia, because it is common practice to ventilate small infants for all but the shortest of surgical procedures. An increase in the work of breathing may, however, become more significant when spontaneous ventilation is established at the end of a surgical case. It remains unclear whether the use of filters allows the safe reuse of breathing systems in small infants. None of the breathing system filters tested by the MHRA had a zero-percent penetrance to sodium chloride particles, and pediatric filters generally had a higher penetrance than their adult counterparts. This finding suggests that there is a potential, albeit small, risk of cross-contamination. The exact risk depends on the type of filter used and on the particular patient undergoing anesthesia or ventilation in the ICU. Although no evidence has been published showing cross-infection occurring when any filter has been used in the anesthesia breathing system for adults or small infants, the level of filtration performance required to allow the safe reuse of anesthesia breathing systems in small infants remains unanswered. Because the incidence of lower respiratory tract colonization is low in unselected small infants, a study with sufficient power to answer accurately the questions regarding the safety of breathing system reuse in small infants would be very difficult to conduct. The effect of filters on post operative infection rates may in fact be of less significance than the adoption of adequate standards of hygiene (eg, hand washing and the use of gloves).Further research is needed to determine if the variations in filtration efficiency demonstrated by the MHRA have any effects on patient outcome. This research might allow setting an effective minimal level of filtration performance for breathing system filters for use in small infants. On a practical note, the publication of the MHRA assessments of breathing system filters provides a useful tool for objective comparison of the different filters available for use in small infants, even though the relevance of the flow used to test pediatric filters has been criticized. Individual institutions will need to formulate policies for the use of breathing system filters for clinical reasons as well as for cost containment or logistical reasons. These policies should be within the frameworks set out by their regulatory agencies. Any problems arising from policies that are in breach of these frame works will remain the responsibility of the individual clinicians caring for these small infants.

小婴儿使用滤嘴。
与年龄较大的儿童和成人相比,使用呼吸系统过滤器可能对小婴儿特别有益,因为他们更需要吸入气体的温暖和加湿,并且他们对下呼吸道污染的易感性增加。然而,关于小婴儿呼吸系统过滤器的安全性和有效性的唯一证据来自对重症监护患者进行的几项小型研究。这些研究表明,使用HME过滤器可以有效地保持体温和气道湿度,同时减少呼吸系统中的液体积聚,从而减少呼吸系统污染。尽管如此,滤镜的使用并没有显示出可以降低小婴儿VAP的发生率。相比之下,在成人重症监护患者,特别是那些需要长时间通气的患者中使用它们,与感染率的降低有关。呼吸系统过滤器的使用与并发症发生率的统计学显著增加无关,尽管与年龄较大的儿童和成人相比,小婴儿使用呼吸系统过滤器的潜在危险更大。在实践中,即使在小婴儿中使用呼吸系统过滤器,也很少引起任何重大的临床问题,这些问题不能通过高度警惕和适当的监测来预防。这种警惕对于防止可能由滤过器闭塞引起的严重发病率甚至死亡率尤其重要;当承受过大负荷时,较小的过滤器比较大的过滤器更容易堵塞。更小的过滤器带来的阻力增加不应转化为全麻期间呼吸功的临床显著增加,因为除了最短的外科手术外,对小婴儿进行通气是常见的做法。然而,在手术结束时建立自发通气时,呼吸功的增加可能变得更加明显。目前尚不清楚使用过滤器是否允许小婴儿安全重复使用呼吸系统。MHRA测试的呼吸系统过滤器对氯化钠颗粒的外显率均为零,儿童过滤器的外显率通常高于成人过滤器。这一发现表明存在潜在的交叉污染风险,尽管风险很小。确切的风险取决于所使用的过滤器类型以及在ICU接受麻醉或通气的特定患者。虽然没有证据表明在成人或小婴儿的麻醉呼吸系统中使用任何过滤器会发生交叉感染,但允许在小婴儿中安全重复使用麻醉呼吸系统所需的过滤性能水平仍然没有答案。由于未选择的小婴儿下呼吸道定植的发生率很低,因此很难进行足够有力的研究来准确回答有关小婴儿呼吸系统重复使用的安全性的问题。过滤器对术后感染率的影响实际上可能不如采取适当的卫生标准(例如,洗手和使用手套)那么重要。需要进一步的研究来确定MHRA所证明的过滤效率的变化是否对患者的预后有任何影响。这项研究可能允许为小婴儿使用的呼吸系统过滤器设置有效的最低过滤性能水平。从实用的角度来看,MHRA对呼吸系统过滤器评估的发布为小婴儿使用的不同过滤器的客观比较提供了一个有用的工具,尽管用于测试儿科过滤器的流量的相关性受到了批评。出于临床原因以及成本控制或后勤原因,个别机构将需要制定使用呼吸系统过滤器的政策。这些政策应在其监管机构制定的框架内实施。违反这些框架的政策所产生的任何问题仍将由照顾这些小婴儿的个别临床医生负责。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信