Performance of helmet CPAP using different configurations: Turbine-driven ventilators vs Venturi devices.

IF 10.4 2区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Pulmonology Pub Date : 2025-12-31 Epub Date: 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1016/j.pulmoe.2023.04.009
A Noto, A Cortegiani, G Genoese, L Appendini, C Gregoretti, A Carlucci, C Crimi
{"title":"Performance of helmet CPAP using different configurations: Turbine-driven ventilators <i>vs</i> Venturi devices.","authors":"A Noto, A Cortegiani, G Genoese, L Appendini, C Gregoretti, A Carlucci, C Crimi","doi":"10.1016/j.pulmoe.2023.04.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditionally, Venturi-based flow generators have been preferred over mechanical ventilators to provide continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) through the helmet (h-CPAP). Recently, modern turbine-driven ventilators (TDVs) showed to be safe and effective in delivering h-CPAP. We aimed to compare the pressure stability during h-CPAP delivered by Venturi devices and TDVs and assess the impact of High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters on their performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a bench study using an artificial lung simulator set in a restrictive respiratory condition, simulating two different levels of patient effort (high and low) with and without the interposition of the HEPA filter. We calculated the average of minimal (Pmin), maximal (Pmax) and mean (Pmean) airway pressure and the time product measured on the airway pressure curve (PTPinsp). We defined the pressure swing (Pswing) as Pmax - Pmin and pressure drop (Pdrop) as End Expiratory Pressure - Pmin.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pswing across CPAP levels varied widely among all the tested devices. During \"low effort\", no difference in Pswing and Pdrop was found between Venturi devices and TDVs; during high effort, Pswing (p<0.001) and Pdrop (p<0.001) were significantly higher in TDVs compared to Venturi devices, but the PTPinsp was lower (1.50 SD 0.54 vs 1.67 SD 0.55, p<0.001). HEPA filter addition almost doubled Pswing and PTPinsp (p<0.001) but left unaltered the differences among Venturi and TDVs systems in favor of the latter (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TDVs performed better than Venturi systems in delivering a stable positive pressure level during h-CPAP in a bench setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":54237,"journal":{"name":"Pulmonology","volume":" ","pages":"2416789"},"PeriodicalIF":10.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulmonology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pulmoe.2023.04.009","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Traditionally, Venturi-based flow generators have been preferred over mechanical ventilators to provide continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) through the helmet (h-CPAP). Recently, modern turbine-driven ventilators (TDVs) showed to be safe and effective in delivering h-CPAP. We aimed to compare the pressure stability during h-CPAP delivered by Venturi devices and TDVs and assess the impact of High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters on their performance.

Methods: We performed a bench study using an artificial lung simulator set in a restrictive respiratory condition, simulating two different levels of patient effort (high and low) with and without the interposition of the HEPA filter. We calculated the average of minimal (Pmin), maximal (Pmax) and mean (Pmean) airway pressure and the time product measured on the airway pressure curve (PTPinsp). We defined the pressure swing (Pswing) as Pmax - Pmin and pressure drop (Pdrop) as End Expiratory Pressure - Pmin.

Results: Pswing across CPAP levels varied widely among all the tested devices. During "low effort", no difference in Pswing and Pdrop was found between Venturi devices and TDVs; during high effort, Pswing (p<0.001) and Pdrop (p<0.001) were significantly higher in TDVs compared to Venturi devices, but the PTPinsp was lower (1.50 SD 0.54 vs 1.67 SD 0.55, p<0.001). HEPA filter addition almost doubled Pswing and PTPinsp (p<0.001) but left unaltered the differences among Venturi and TDVs systems in favor of the latter (p<0.001).

Conclusions: TDVs performed better than Venturi systems in delivering a stable positive pressure level during h-CPAP in a bench setting.

使用不同配置的头盔CPAP的性能:涡轮驱动呼吸机与文丘里装置。
背景:传统上,文丘里流发生器比机械呼吸机更适合通过头盔(h-CPAP)提供持续气道正压(CPAP)。最近,现代涡轮驱动通气机(TDVs)在提供h-CPAP方面显示出安全有效。我们的目的是比较文丘里装置和TDVs在h-CPAP期间的压力稳定性,并评估高效微粒空气(HEPA)过滤器对其性能的影响。方法:我们在限制性呼吸条件下使用人工肺模拟器进行了实验研究,模拟患者在有和没有HEPA过滤器的情况下两种不同程度的努力(高和低)。计算最小气道压力(Pmin)、最大气道压力(Pmax)、平均气道压力(Pmean)的平均值及气道压力曲线(PTPinsp)测量的时间积。我们将压力波动(Pswing)定义为Pmax - Pmin,压降(Pdrop)定义为呼气末压力- Pmin。结果:在所有测试设备中,CPAP水平的Pswing差异很大。在“低努力”阶段,文丘里装置与tdv之间的Pswing和Pdrop没有差异;结论:在h-CPAP试验中,TDVs在提供稳定的正压水平方面优于文丘里系统。
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
Pulmonology
Pulmonology Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
14.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
159
审稿时长
19 days
期刊介绍: Pulmonology (previously Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia) is the official journal of the Portuguese Society of Pulmonology (Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia/SPP). The journal publishes 6 issues per year and focuses on respiratory system diseases in adults and clinical research. It accepts various types of articles including peer-reviewed original articles, review articles, editorials, and opinion articles. The journal is published in English and is freely accessible through its website, as well as Medline and other databases. It is indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded, Journal of Citation Reports, Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Scopus, and EMBASE/Excerpta Medica.
×
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