Preservation of humidity and heat of respiratory gases in patients with a minute ventilation greater than 10 L/min.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the temperature and humidification output of one heated humidifier system (Bennett Cascade 2 Humidifier) and two heat and moisture exchangers (Pall Ultipor, BB 50, and Humid-Vent Filter) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients submitted to a minute ventilation of > 10 L/min.


METHODS
Prospective, controlled, randomized, unblinded study.


METHODS
ICU of a university hospital.


METHODS
Eleven sedated and paralyzed patients who required controlled mechanical ventilation with a minute ventilation of > 10 L/min for > 3 days.


METHODS
After a randomized selection process, the patients were ventilated for 24-hr periods with the humidifier and one of the heat and moisture exchangers. Both heat and moisture exchangers were first tested for 45 mins; then, the heat and moisture exchanger that demonstrated the best performance in terms of temperature and water preservation was tested for 24 hrs.


RESULTS
During the inspiration phase for each patient, the following measurements were performed: mean and minimum values of temperature, relative and absolute humidity of inspired gases. During the 45-min test period, the Humid-Vent Filter had a better temperature and humidification output than the Pall Ultipor Filter and thus was tested for 24 hrs. The Bennett Cascade 2 Humidifier and the Humid-Vent Filter had a better thermic capacity than the Pall Ultipor Filter (p < .001). No difference was ever observed between the Bennett Cascade 2 Humidifier and the Humid-Vent Filter regarding relative humidity. The Pall Ultipor Filter had a lower temperature and humidification output when compared with the other two systems (p < .007). Concerning absolute humidity of inspired gases, the Pall Ultipor Filter achieved a lower performance than any other tested systems (p < .02). A small but significant decrease in temperature and absolute humidity, but not in relative humidity, was seen after 24 hrs of use with the Humid-Vent Filter. However, with this heat and moisture exchanger, all patients had an absolute humidity of > 28 mg H2O/L and a relative humidity of > 93% after 24 hrs of use.


CONCLUSIONS
In patients with a minute ventilation of > 10 L/min (> 10.5 to 16.0 L/min), the Humid-Vent Filter had a temperature and humidification output close to the reference system (the Bennett Cascade 2 Humidifier). The Pall Ultipor Filter had a significantly lower temperature and humidification output in these patients.
Martin
C
C
Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Sainte-Marguerite Hospital, Marseilles School of Medicine, France.
Papazian
L
L
Perrin
G
G
Saux
P
P
Gouin
F
F
D000208:Acute Disease; D000368:Aged; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D005260:Female; D005374:Filtration / Q000295:instrumentation; D006358:Hot Temperature; D006801:Humans; D006813:Humidity; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012121:Respiration, Artificial / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012131:Respiratory Insufficiency / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000628:therapy; D013696:Temperature; D013997:Time Factors; D012122:Ventilators, Mechanical / Q000706:statistics & numerical data