title: A comparison of leak compensation in acute care ventilators during noninvasive and invasive ventilation: a lung model study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Although leak compensation has been widely introduced to acute care ventilators to improve patient-ventilator synchronization in the presence of system leaks, there are no data on these ventilators' ability to prevent triggering and cycling asynchrony. The goal of this study was to evaluate the ability of leak compensation in acute care ventilators during invasive and noninvasive ventilation (NIV).
  
  
  METHODS
  Using a lung simulator, the impact of system leaks was compared on 7 ICU ventilators and 1 dedicated NIV ventilator during triggering and cycling at 2 respiratory mechanics (COPD and ARDS models) settings, various modes of ventilation (NIV mode [pressure support ventilation], and invasive mode [pressure support and continuous mandatory ventilation]), and 2 PEEP levels (5 and 10 cm H(2)O). Leak levels used were up to 35-36 L/min in NIV mode and 26-27 L/min in invasive mode.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Although all of the ventilators were able to synchronize with the simulator at baseline, only 4 of the 8 ventilators synchronized to all leaks in NIV mode, and 2 of the 8 ventilators in invasive mode. The number of breaths to synchronization was higher during increasing than during decreasing leak. In the COPD model, miss-triggering occurred more frequently and required a longer time to stabilize tidal volume than in the ARDS model. The PB840 required fewer breaths to synchronize in both invasive and noninvasive modes, compared with the other ventilators (P < .001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Leak compensation in invasive and noninvasive modes has wide variations between ventilators. The PB840 and the V60 were the only ventilators to acclimate to all leaks, but there were differences in performance between these 2 ventilators. It is not clear if these differences have clinical importance.
authors.affiliation: Respiratory Care Services, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Jun
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Oto
authors.forename: Christopher T
authors.initials: CT
authors.lastname: Chenelle
authors.forename: Andrew D
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: Marchese
authors.forename: Robert M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Kacmarek
mesh_terms: D003198:Computer Simulation; D003422:Critical Care / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D004867:Equipment Design; D004868:Equipment Failure; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D006801:Humans; D008954:Models, Biological; D063087:Noninvasive Ventilation / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D029424:Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy*; D012121:Respiration, Artificial / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D012128:Respiratory Distress Syndrome / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy*; D015656:Respiratory Mechanics; D012122:Ventilators, Mechanical / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000592:standards
keywords: acute care ventilator; leak compensation; mechanical ventilation