Impact of humidification systems on ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized multicenter trial. A prospective, randomized comparison of an in-line heat moisture exchange filter and heated wire humidifiers: rates of ventilator-associated early-onset (community-acquired) or late-onset (hospital-acquired) pneumonia and incidence of endotracheal tube occlusion. Ventilator-associated pneumonia using a heated humidifier or a heat and moisture exchanger: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN88724583]. [Moistening of inspired air during respirator treatment. Comparison between the water-bath evaporator and hygroscopic moisture heat exchanger]. [Effect of hygrophobic filter or heated humidifier on peroperative hypothermia]. The effects of passive humidifier dead space on respiratory variables in paralyzed and spontaneously breathing patients. Maintenance of body temperature in elderly patients who have joint replacement surgery. A comparison between the heat and moisture exchanger and heated humidifier. Heat and moisture exchanger vs heated humidifier during long-term mechanical ventilation. A prospective randomized study. Comparison of hydrophobic heat and moisture exchangers with heated humidifier during prolonged mechanical ventilation. Do heated humidifiers and heat and moisture exchangers prevent temperature drop during lower abdominal surgery? Mechanical ventilation with heated humidifiers or heat and moisture exchangers: effects on patient colonization and incidence of nosocomial pneumonia. Passive and active inspired gas humidification in infants and children. Passive or active inspired gas humidification increases thermal steady-state temperatures in anesthetized infants. Gradual reduction of endotracheal tube diameter during mechanical ventilation via different humidification devices. A randomized clinical trial to compare the effects of a heat and moisture exchanger with a heated humidifying system on the occurrence rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Preservation of humidity and heat of respiratory gases in patients with a minute ventilation greater than 10 L/min. Comparison of three different humidification systems during prolonged mechanical ventilation. Unfavorable mechanical effects of heat and moisture exchangers in ventilated patients. Clinical utility of hygroscopic heat and moisture exchangers in intensive care patients. Bedside evaluation of efficient airway humidification during mechanical ventilation of the critically ill. Safety of combined heat and moisture exchanger filters in long-term mechanical ventilation. Comparison of the effects of heat and moisture exchangers and heated humidifiers on ventilation and gas exchange during weaning trials from mechanical ventilation. Double-heater-wire circuits and heat-and-moisture exchangers and the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Pulmonary function in mechanically-ventilated patients during 24-hour use of a hygroscopic condensor humidifier. Heated humidification in major abdominal surgery. A randomized clinical trial comparing an extended-use hygroscopic condenser humidifier with heated-water humidification in mechanically ventilated patients. Effects of heat and moisture exchangers on minute ventilation, ventilatory drive, and work of breathing during pressure-support ventilation in acute respiratory failure. Heat and moisture exchangers and vaporizing humidifiers in the intensive care unit. Mechanical effects of airway humidification devices in difficult to wean patients.
The respective influence on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia of currently available systems used for warming and humidifying the gases delivered to mechanically ventilated patients, that is, heated humidifiers and heat and moisture exchanger filters, remains controversial.
                We addressed this question in a multicenter randomized study comparing heated humidifiers (with heated circuits) and filters in an unselected population of 369 intensive care patients receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h.
                The diagnosis of pneumonia was confirmed according to strict microbiologic criteria. There was no difference in pneumonia rate between the two groups (53 of 184 [28.8%] versus 47 of 185 [25.4%] for humidifiers versus filters; p = 0.48), or in the incidence density of pneumonia (27.4/1,000 ventilatory days versus 25.3/1,000 ventilatory days for humidifiers versus filters; p = 0.76). The mean duration of mechanical ventilation did not differ between the two groups (14.9 +/- 15.1 versus 13.5 +/- 16.3 days for humidifiers versus filters, p = 0.36). Endotracheal tube occlusion occurred, respectively, in five patients and one patient in the humidifier and filter groups (p = 0.12). Intensive care mortality was identical in the two groups (about 33%).
                These results suggest that both heated humidifiers and heat and moisture exchanger filters can be used with no significant impact on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia and that other criteria may justify their choice. To compare the performance of an in-line heat moisture exchanging filter (HMEF) (Pall BB-100; Pall Corporation; East Hills, NY) to a conventional heated wire humidifier (H-wH) (Marquest Medical Products Inc., Englewood, Colo) in the mechanical ventilator circuit on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and the rate of endotracheal tube occlusion.
                This report describes a prospective, randomized trial of 280 consecutive trauma patients in a 20-bed trauma ICU (TICU). All intubated patients not ventilated elsewhere in the medical center prior to their TICU admission were randomized to either an in-line HMEF or a H-wH in the breathing circuit. Ventilator circuits were changed routinely every 7 days, and closed system suction catheters were changed every 3 days. HMEFs were changed every 24 h, or more frequently if necessary. A specific endotracheal tube suction and lavage protocol was not employed. Patients were dropped from the HMEF group if the filter was changed more than three times a day or the patient was placed on a regimen of ultra high-frequency ventilation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria for diagnosis of pneumonia were used; early-onset, community-acquired pneumonia was defined if CDC criteria were met in < or =3 days, and late-onset, hospital-acquired pneumonia was defined if criteria were met in >3 days. Laboratory and chest radiograph interpretation were blinded.
                The patient ages ranged from 15 to 95 years in the HMEF group and 16 to 87 years in the H-wH group (p=not significant), with a mean age of 46 years and 48 years, respectively. The male to female ratio ranged between 78 to 82%/22 to 18%, respectively, and 55% of all admissions were related to blunt trauma, 40% secondary to penetrating trauma, and 5% to major burns. There was no difference in Injury Severity Score (ISS) between the two groups. Moreover, there was no significant difference in mean ISS among those who did not develop pneumonia and those patients who developed either early-onset, community-acquired or late-onset, hospital-acquired pneumonia. The HMEF nosocomial VAP rate was 6% compared to 16% for the H-wH group (p<0.05), and total ventilator circuit costs (per group) were reduced. There were no differences in duration of ventilation (mean+/-SD) if the patient did not develop pneumonia or if the patient developed an early-onset, community-acquired or a late-onset, hospital-acquired pneumonia. Moreover, total TICU days were reduced in the HMEF group. In addition, the incidence of partial endotracheal tube occlusion was not significantly different between the H-wH and the HMEF groups.
                The HMEF used in this study reduced the incidence of late-onset, hospital-acquired VAP, but not early-onset, community-acquired VAP, compared to the conventional H-wH circuit. This was associated with a significant reduction in total ICU stay. Disposable ventilator circuit costs in the HMEF group were reduced compared to the H-wH group in whom circuit changes occurred at 7-day intervals.
                The use of the HMEF is a cost-effective clinical practice associated with fewer late-onset, hospital-acquired VAPs, and should result in improved resource allocation and utilization. Some guidelines to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) do not establish a recommendation for the preferential use of either heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) or heated humidifiers (HHs), while other guidelines clearly advocate the use of HMEs. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of VAP associated with HHs or HMEs.
                A randomized study was conducted in the intensive care unit of a university hospital involving patients expected to require mechanical ventilation for >5 days. Patients were assigned to two groups; one group received HH and the other group received HME. Tracheal aspirate samples were obtained on endotracheal intubation, then twice a week, and finally on extubation, in order to diagnose VAP. Throat swabs were taken on admission to the intensive care unit, then twice a week, and finally at discharge from the intensive care unit in order to classify VAP as primary endogenous, secondary endogenous, or exogenous.
                A total of 120 patients were assigned to HMEs (60 patients) and HHs (60 patients); 16 patients received mechanical ventilation for less than five days and were excluded from the analysis. Data analysis of the remaining 104 patients (53 HMEs and 51 HHs) showed no significant differences between groups regarding sex, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, pre-VAP use of antibiotics, days on mechanical ventilation, and diagnosis group. VAP was found in eight of 51 (15.69%) patients in the HH group and in 21 of 53 (39.62%) patients in the HME group (P = 0.006). The median time free of VAP was 20 days (95% confidence interval, 13.34-26.66) for the HH group and was 42 days (95% confidence interval, 35.62-48.37) for the HME group (P <0.001). Cox regression analysis showed the HME as a risk factor for VAP (hazard rate, 16.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.54-58.04; P < 0.001).
                The patients mechanically ventilated during more than 5 days developed a lower incidence of VAP with a heated humidifier than heat and moisture exchanger. nan A study was carried out to find out whether the use of a hygrophobic filter (Pall, Ultipor) or of a heated humidifier (Dräger, Aquapor) during surgery had any effect on a patient's intraoperative core temperature and thermal balance. Seventy-five ASA I or II patients scheduled for gynaecological surgery were randomly assigned to three groups: group A (n = 25), where no warming device was used; and two groups (n = 25 for each) where inhaled gases were humidified and heated with either a hygrophobic filter set up between the endotracheal tube and the Y-piece (group B) or a heated humidifier set to 100% saturation at a temperature of 41.5 degrees C (group C). The patients were all anaesthetised with the same technique (thiopentone 5 mg.kg-1, dextromoramide 0.03 mg.kg-1 and 0.1 mg.kg-1 of either pancuronium or vecuronium, followed by enflurane with nitrous oxide in oxygen); the perfused fluids were not heated. Room, tympanic, rectal, oesophageal and four skin (thorax, arm, leg, thigh) temperatures were measured with calibrated Exacon thermistances, on arrival in the operating theatre, during induction, every ten minutes for two hours, and then every twenty minutes for two hours more. Ramanathan's and Burton's formulae were used to calculate mean skin temperature and heat loss respectively. In the recovery room, patients were warmed up with an electric blanket. Shivering was ranked from "0" to "+ +". There were no differences between groups as far as age, drug doses, perfusion volumes and room temperature were concerned.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Passive humidifiers have gained acceptance in the intensive care unit because of their low cost, simple operation, and elimination of condensate from the breathing circuit. However, the additional dead space of these devices may adversely affect respiratory function in certain patients. This study evaluates the effects of passive humidifier dead space on respiratory function.
                Two groups of patients were studied. The first group consisted of patients recovering from acute lung injury and breathing spontaneously on pressure support ventilation. The second group consisted of patients who were receiving controlled mechanical ventilation and were chemically paralyzed following operative procedures. All patients used 3 humidification devices in random order for one hour each. The devices were a heated humidifier (HH), a hygroscopic heat and moisture exchanger (HHME) with a dead space of 28 mL, and a heat and moisture exchanger (HME) with a dead space of 90 mL. During each measurement period the following were recorded: tidal volume, minute volume, respiratory frequency, oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, ratio of dead space volume to tidal volume (VD/VT), and blood gases. In the second group, intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure was also measured.
                Addition of either of the passive humidifiers was associated with increased VD/VT. In spontaneously breathing patients, VD/VT increased from 59 +/- 13 (HH) to 62 +/- 13 (HHME) to 68 +/- 11% (HME) (p < 0.05). In these patients, constant alveolar ventilation was maintained as a result of increased respiratory frequency, from 22.1 +/- 6.6 breaths/min (HH) to 24.5 +/- 6.9 breaths/min (HHME) to 27.7 +/- 7.4 breaths/min (HME) (p < 0.05), and increased minute volume, from 9.1 +/- 3.5 L/min (HH) to 9.9 +/- 3.6 L/min (HHME) to 11.7 +/- 4.2 L/min (HME) (p < 0.05). There were no changes in blood gases or carbon dioxide production. In the paralyzed patient group, VD/VT increased from 54 +/- 12% (HH) to 56 +/- 10% (HHME) to 59 +/- 11% (HME) (p < 0.05) and arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) increased from 43.2 +/- 8.5 mm Hg (HH) to 43.9 +/- 8.7 mm Hg (HHME) to 46.8 +/- 11 mm Hg (HME) (p < 0.05). There were no changes in respiratory frequency, tidal volume, minute volume, carbon dioxide production, or intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure.
                These findings suggest that use of passive humidifiers with increased dead space is associated with increased VD/VT. In spontaneously breathing patients this is associated with an increase in respiratory rate and minute volume to maintain constant alveolar ventilation. In paralyzed patients this is associated with a small but statistically significant increase in PaCO2.
                Clinicians should be aware that each type of passive humidifier has inherent dead space characteristics. Passive humidifiers with high dead space may negatively impact the respiratory function of spontaneously breathing patients or carbon dioxide retention in paralyzed patients. When choosing a passive humidifier, the device with the smallest dead space, but which meets the desired moisture output requirements, should be selected. The effect of a heat and moisture exchanger on intra-operative aural canal (core) and mean skin temperatures was investigated in elderly patients who had elective total hip arthroplasty under general anaesthesia with artificial ventilation of the lungs. Group 1 (n = 20) did not receive any form of artificial humidification while in group 2 (n = 20) a heat and moisture exchanger was inserted in the breathing system and in group 3 (n = 20) the inspired gases were humidified and warmed at 40 degrees C by means of a heated humidifier. Time of surgery, intravenous fluid administration and operating theatre temperature were standardised. Mean (SD) aural canal (core) temperature decreased significantly in groups 1 and 2 (p less than 0.001), while there was a fall of 0.3 degrees C (0.6) in group 3, which was not significant. Mean skin temperature decreased during anaesthesia and surgery in both groups 1 and 2 (p less than 0.05), while it increased in group 3. There was a significantly greater loss of body heat in groups 1 and 2 compared with group 3 intra-operatively (p less than 0.001). We conclude tha a heat and moisture exchanger did not prevent the decrease in intra-operative body temperature in elderly patients. Adequate humidification of inspired gases with HMEs during long-term MV remains controversial. In this study, a comparison is made between tracheal secretions during long-term MV either with HME or conventional HH. Both the HME and HH groups were similar with respect to age, sex, diagnosis, duration of MV, SAPS and mortality. Temperature of gases in the tracheal tube was lower and the amount of tracheal instillations was greater in the HME group than in the HH group. Tracheal secretions became thicker between day 1 (control) and day 5, in the HME group than in the HH group. Four and two tube occlusions occurred in HME and HH groups, respectively. Tracheal bacterial colonization was similar in the two groups. Given the advantages of HME (reduced nurses' work and financial cost), HME could be routinely used under cautious surveillance and replaced by HH if difficulty in suctioning occurs. Inspired gases must be warmed and humidified during mechanical ventilation. In a prospective randomized study we compared the performance of a heated humidifier (HH) (Draegger Aquaport) and a heat and moisture exchanger (HME) (Pall Filter BB 2215). A total of 116 patients requiring mechanical ventilation (Servo 900 C Siemens) were enrolled into the study and were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Patients in group I were ventilated with a traditional breathing circuit with HH and patients in group II using a simplified circuit with HME. Pre-existing and hospital acquired atelectasis and pneumonia, occurrence of endotracheal tube (ET) occlusion and ventilatory parameters (respiratory rate, tidal volume) were studied. No statistical difference was found between groups for each parameter except the greater frequency of ET occlusions in the II group (0/61 vs 9/55) (p = 0.0008). Pall Filter (PF), a hydrophobic filter, humidifies the dry gases from the condensed water which is put down on the HME surfaces during cooling of saturated expired gases. This purely physical property is linked to the magnitude of the thermic gradient between the expired gases and the ambiant temperature. Performance impairment of PF in our study might be due to high ambiant temperature in the intensive care unit (usually around 28 degrees C) which reduces thermic gradient and water exchanges. We conclude that efficiency of PF may be weak in some conditions of ambiant temperature. To compare the effects of using a heated humidifier (HH), a heat and moisture exchanger (HME), or no warming device in maintaining body temperature during surgical procedures of 1 to 4 hours' duration.
                A randomized, controlled study.
                Operating room, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA.
                51 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients, age 16 to 69 years, scheduled for a variety of lower abdominal procedures under general endotracheal anesthesia anticipated to last 1 to 4 hours.
                We randomly assigned patients to receiving an HH, an HME, or no warming device during the procedure. We then measured the patient's sublingual temperature every 5 minutes prior to induction, every 15 minutes intraoperatively, and every 15 minutes postoperatively until he or she was discharged from the postanesthesia care unit, (PACU). We also measured the esophageal temperature every 15 minutes intraoperatively.
                Sublingual temperature or esophageal temperature probes placed at the site of maximal heart tones indicated that the patients' temperatures dropped significantly from baseline values in all three groups during the first 60 minutes of surgery, then remained constant during the next 120 minutes of surgery. Patients who had no warming device shivered and felt cold significantly more often than patients in the HH group but not more often than patients in the HME group. There was no difference in shivering between the HH and HME groups. The patients who received an HH tended to have a higher temperature (a mean of 0.5 degrees C) throughout the study, but this did not reach statistical significance.
                Results indicate that these warming devices provide little benefit in preventing a temperature drop during procedures of 1 to 4 hours' duration, although patients with an HH tended to have a higher temperature than those with an HME or no device. The contribution of ventilator circuit bacterial contamination to the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia remains controversial. In a previous study, we found that the incidence of pneumonia was identical with ventilator circuit changes every 48 h and with no ventilator circuit changes. The present study prospectively assessed whether keeping ventilator circuits clean with a heat and moisture exchanger exhibiting antimicrobial barrier properties affects patient colonization and the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h. Consecutive patients were randomly allocated to humidification with either a heat and moisture exchanger (Group 1, n = 61) or a heated humidifier (Group 2, n = 70). In both groups, no circuit changes were performed throughout ventilatory support. Duration of mechanical ventilation was identical in both groups (10 +/- 8.6 d (range: 2 to 47) in Group 1 and 12.5 +/- 14.2 d [range: 2 to 85] in Group 2). The incidence of pneumonia (positive quantitative culture of protected brush specimen) was similar in both groups (6/61 and 8/70 in Groups 1 and 2, respectively; p = 0.8), as was duration of ventilation prior to pneumonia (9 +/- 5.9 versus 8.2 +/- 5.7 d; p = 0.8). Ventilator tubing contamination was considerably reduced with the use of a heat and moisture exchanger. In contrast, bacterial colonization of the pharynx and trachea was identical in both groups. These results suggest that circuit colonization plays little or no role in the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, provided usual maintenance precautions are applied.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) The hypothesis that both active and passive airway humidification prevents hypothermia in infants and children, but that neither decreases the duration of postoperative recovery was tested. Twenty-seven ASA physical status 1 or 2 patients were studied who weighed between 5 and 30 kg, underwent superficial operations, were anesthetized with halothane and 70% N2O, and whose lungs were ventilated via a Rees modification of an Ayre's t-piece. The children were randomly assigned to receive active airway humidification and warming using an MR450 Servo airway heater and humidifier set at 37 degrees C (n = 10), passive airway humidification using the Humid-Vent 1 heat and moisture exchanger placed between the Ayre's t-piece and the endotracheal tube (n = 8), or no airway humidification and heating (control, n = 9). Distal tracheal and tympanic membrane temperatures and airway humidity were recorded during the first 90 min of surgery. Rectal temperature was measured during the postanesthetic recovery period. Relative humidity of inspired respiratory gases was approximately 30% in the control group and approximately 90% in the group given active airway humidification. Initial inspired humidity in the passive humidification group (50%) increased to approximately 80%, a level not significantly different from that in the active group after 80 min of anesthesia. Central body temperature increased 0.25 degrees C during active active airway humidification and heating, whereas temperature decreased 0.25 degrees C during passive humidification and 0.75 degrees C without airway humidification. Distal tracheal temperature was significantly higher in the groups given passive and active humidification than in the control group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) We tested the hypothesis that active and passive airway humidification minimize hypothermia in infants, but that maintaining normothermia does not decrease the duration of postoperative recovery. A circle system was used to ventilate the lungs of anesthetized, intubated infants who were randomly assigned to active airway humidification and warming with use of an MR450 Servo airway heater and humidifier set at 37 degrees C (n = 10), passive airway humidification with use of the Humid-Vent Mini heat and moisture exchanger placed between the Y-piece of the circle and the endotracheal tube (n = 10), or no airway humidification and heating (control, n = 10). Anesthesia was induced with thiopental and maintained with isoflurane and nitrous oxide in oxygen. The relative humidity of inspired respiratory gases was approximately 35% in the control group and approximately 90% in the group undergoing active airway humidification. Initial inspired humidity in the passive humidification group (45%) increased to approximately 80% after 1 h of anesthesia. Humidity differed significantly across groups at all times (P less than or equal to 0.05). Steady-state rectal temperatures (100-120 min after induction) were 36.2 +/- 0.7 degrees C in patients given active humidification and heating, 35.7 +/- 0.9 degrees C in the passively humidified group, and 35.2 +/- 0.4 degrees C in the control group (P less than or equal to 0.05 between each group). Recovery from general anesthesia was rapid in all patients and did not correlate with central temperature changes or type of humidification (P = NS).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Limited data suggest that increased resistance to flow within endotracheal tubes (ETT) may occur in patients whose lungs are mechanically ventilated for more than 48 h, especially when airway humidification is inadequate. This could lead to sudden ETT obstruction or induce excessive loading during spontaneous breathing.
                Twenty-three such patients were randomly assigned to three types of airway humidifier based on three different working principles: a Fisher Paykell hot water system (n = 7), a Pall BB2215 heat and moisture exchanger (HME) hydrophobic filter (n = 8), and a Dar Hygrobac 35254111 HME hygroscopic filter (n = 8). The decrease in internal pressure along the ETT and the flow rate were measured in each patient every 2 days. An "effective inner diameter" was derived from these measurements and allowed the inner ETT configuration to be monitored.
                On the first day of intubation, the mean diameter was similar in the three groups, and was slightly smaller than the in vitro diameter (mean +/- SD: 7.6 +/- 0.6 mm for Fisher-Paykell, 7.7 +/- 0.4 for Pall, and 7.5 +/- 0.4 for Dar). The mean diameter tended to decrease from day to day. At the end of the study, the overall reduction in mean diameter was significantly greater with the hydrophobic HME (Pall) than with the two other systems (Pall: -6.5 +/- 4% vs. 2.5 +/- 2.5% for Dar and 1.5 +/- 3% for Fisher-Paykell; P < 0.01 with analysis of variance). The same was true of the mean reduction in effective inner ETT diameter expressed per day of ventilation (-1.6 +/- 1.5% per day for Pall vs. -0.5 +/- 0.4% for Dar and -0.2 +/- 0.4% for Fisher-Paykell; P < 0.01). In four patients, the ETT became obstructed and emergency repeated tracheal intubation was required. The Pall HME and the Fisher-Paykell system were being used in three and one patient, respectively. Before obstruction, the reduction in ETT diameter was significantly greater for these four patients than for the remaining 23 patients (7.8 +/- 1.4% vs. 3.1 +/- 4.1%; P < 0.01).
                During prolonged mechanical ventilation, significant alterations in inner ETT configuration occur frequently and are influenced by the type of humidification device used. In vivo monitoring of ETT mechanical properties might be clinically useful. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of heat and moisture exchanger filters with heated humidifying systems in the mechanical ventilator circuit on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and bacterial colonization.
                Two hundred and forty-three consecutive patients who required mechanical ventilation for 48 hours or more in the adult intensive care unit were randomized to either a heat and moisture exchanger (HME) or a heated humidifying breathing circuit.
                The VAP rate among the group with HME was 11.4%; the rate among the group with heated humidifying system (HHS) was 15.8%. The difference was not statistically significant. Approximately 68% of the patients in the HME group had no pathogen isolated compared with 50% of the patients in the HHS group. This difference was statistically significant (P =.006). However, the distribution of the pathogens among those patients who had the isolated pathogens was mostly identical in the 2 groups.
                Even though the study did not find HME to be significantly advantageous over the HHS, in as much as VAP rate is concerned, other advantages such as reduced nurses workload, reduced financial cost, and better safety made HME a more favorable device for use in our adult intensive care unit. 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.
                Prospective, controlled, randomized, unblinded study.
                ICU of a university hospital.
                Eleven sedated and paralyzed patients who required controlled mechanical ventilation with a minute ventilation of > 10 L/min for > 3 days.
                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.
                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.
                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. An efficient humidification system is expected to maintain fluid and easily drainable airway secretions. This study aims to compare the efficiency and safety of three humidification systems during prolonged mechanical ventilation.
                Two-center, prospective, randomized study.
                45 critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation were included in the study and allocated to receive one of three humidification techniques: 1) Bennett Cascade water-bath humidifier (Bennett group); 2) Fisher & Paykel servocontrolled humidifier (F & P group); 3) HME Hygrobac DAR (HME group). Clinical and experimental observations were conducted for 3 to 7 consecutive days and included: body T degree, room T degree, inspired gas T degree, tracheal T degree, relative and absolute humidity, heat and water loss, airway secretion score, need for endotracheal saline instillation and incidence of ETT occlusion.
                The HME group showed a lower temperature of inspired gases compared to the F & P group (p < 0.05); it also showed a lower absolute humidity compared to both Bennett and F & P groups (p < 0.05). A better airway secretion score was obtained in Bennett and F & P groups compared to the HME group (p < 0.01).
                Passive humidification systems provided low degrees of humidity and temperature and could not maintain good secretions. Active systems appeared to satisfy the recommended standards and to allow fluid and easily drainable secretions. To investigate the mechanical effects of artificial noses.
                A general intensive care unit of a university hospital.
                10 patients in pressure support ventilation for acute respiratory failure.
                The following three conditions were randomly tested on each patient: the use of a heated humidifier (control condition), the use of a heat and moisture exchanger without filtering function (HME), and the use of a combined heat and moisture exchanger and mechanical filter (HMEF). The pressure support level was automatically adapted by means of a closed-loop control in order to obtain constancy, throughout the study, of patient inspiratory effort as evaluated from airway occlusion pressure at 0.1 s (P0.1). Patient's ventilatory pattern, P0.1, work of breathing, and blood gases were recorded.
                The artificial noses increased different components of the inspiratory load: inspiratory resistance, ventilation requirements (due to increased dead space ventilation), and dynamic intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The additional load imposed by the artificial noses was entirely undertaken by the ventilator, being the closed-loop control of P0.1 effective to maintain constancy of patient inspiratory work by means of adequate increases in pressure support level.
                The artificial noses cause unfavorable mechanical effects by increasing inspiratory resistance, ventilation requirements, and dynamic intrinsic PEEP. Clinicians should consider these effects when setting mechanical ventilation and when assessing patients' ability to breathe spontaneously. To compare the degree of bacterial circuit colonization, frequency of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), character of respiratory secretions, rewarming of hypothermic patients, disposable costs, and air flow resistance in intensive care patients ventilated using either a heat and moisture exchanger (HME) or hot water (HW) humidifier circuit.
                A prospective, randomized blinded trial of patients in the intensive care unit undergoing mechanical ventilation.
                A metropolitan teaching hospital.
                One hundred sixteen patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for a minimum period of 48 hrs were enrolled.
                Patients were randomized to three ventilation groups using a) an HW circuit with a 2-day circuit change (n = 41); or b) a bacterial-viral filtering HME in the circuit, with either a 2-day (n = 42); or c) a 4-day circuit change (n = 33).
                Circuit colonization was assessed using quantitative culture of washings taken from the circuit tubing and semiquantitative culture of swabs from the Y connectors. Sixty-seven percent of HW circuits became contaminated compared with 12% in the two HME groups (p < .0001). Median colony counts were lower in the HME groups (p < .0001). If circuits at first circuit change were contaminated in the HW group, 89% of subsequent circuit changes became contaminated compared with 0% and 25% for the 2- and 4-day HME groups, respectively. The frequency of VAP, the time to resolution of admission hypothermia, and the volume and fluidity of secretions were similar for all groups. The resistance of the HME after 24 hrs of use was < 0.025 cm H2O/L at gas flows of 40 L/min. HME use resulted in a cost reduction of $1.48 (Australian)/day.
                Circuits with a bacterial-viral filtering HME are less readily colonized by bacteria. Contamination is a random event. Humidification technique has no influence on the frequency rate of VAP, the effectiveness of rewarming, nor the character of the respiratory secretions. Breathing resistance is generally low and disposable costs are reduced when an HME is used. To determine the correlation between simple rating of condensation seen in the flex-tube connecting the heating and humidifying device used with the endotracheal tube and hygrometric parameters (absolute and relative humidity and tracheal temperature) measured by psychrometry.
                Prospective randomized clinical trial.
                Medical ICU of Louis Mourier Hospital, Colombes, France, a university-affiliated teaching hospital.
                Forty-five consecutive mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.
                Patients undergoing mechanical ventilation were randomly assigned to receive humidification with one of the four heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) tested or with a conventional heated humidifier.
                The hygrometric performances of four HMEs (BB2215, BB50, and BB100 from Pall Biomedical, Saint-Germaine-en-Laye, France; and Hygrobac-Dar from Mallinckrodt, Mirandola, Italy) and a heated humidifier (Fisher & Paykel; Auckland, New Zealand) were studied after 3 h and also after 48 h of use for the Hygrobac-Dar and correlated to a clinical visual inspection rating the amount of condensation in the flex-tube of the endotracheal tube.
                A total of 95 measurements in 45 patients were performed. The best hygrometric parameters were obtained with the heated humidifier (p < 0.001). The Hygrobac-Dar yielded significantly higher values for both humidities and tracheal temperature than the other three HMEs (p < 0.001). The performance of Hygrobac-Dar was unchanged after 48 h of use. There was a significant correlation between the condensation seen in the flex-tube and the hygrometric parameters measured by psychrometry (absolute humidity, rho = 0.7; relative humidity, rho = 0.7; tracheal temperature, rho = 0.5, p < 0.0001).
                In mechanically ventilated ICU patients, visual evaluation of the condensation in the flex-tube provides an estimation of the heating and humidifying efficacy of the heating and humidifying device used, thus allowing the clinician bedside monitoring of airway humidification. To evaluate the safety of a combined heat and moisture exchanger filter (HMEF) for the conditioning of inspired gas in long-term mechanical ventilation (MV).
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Medical ICU in a large teaching hospital.
                One hundred fifteen consecutive patients who required > or = 48 h of MV.
                Patients were randomized at intubation time (day 1) to receive inspired gas conditioned either by a water-bath humidifier heated at 32 degrees C (HWBH) or by an HMEF (Hygroster; DAR; Mirandola, Italy).
                The two study groups were comparable in terms of primary pathologic condition at the time of hospital admission, disease severity as measured by the Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and ICU mortality. They did not differ with respect to ventilator days per patient (mean +/- SD: HMEF, 7.6 +/- 6.5; HWBH, 7.8 +/- 5.8), incidence of endotracheal tube obstruction (HMEF, 0/59; HWBH, 1/56), and incidence of hypothermic episodes (HMEF, five; HWBH, two). In 41 patients receiving MV for > or = 5 days, the morphologic integrity of respiratory epithelium was evaluated on day 1 and day 5, using a cytologic examination of tracheal aspirate smears. The state of ciliated epithelium was scored on a scale from 0 (poorest integrity) to 1,200 (maximum integrity), according to a well-described method. In both patient groups, the scores slightly but significantly decreased from day 1 to day 5 (mean +/- SD: HWBH, from 787 +/- 104 to 745 +/- 88; HMEF, from 813 +/- 79 to 739 +/- 62; p < 0.01 for both groups); there were no statistically significant differences between groups.
                These data indicate acceptable safety of HMEFs of the type used in the present study for long-term mechanical ventilation. Heat and moisture exchangers (HME) are increasingly used to warm and humidify inspired gases in intubated ventilated patients. But these devices add dead space that may alter the alveolar ventilation. This could impair the efficiency of spontaneous ventilation (SV) during weaning trials from mechanical ventilation. Fifteen patients were tested with an HME (Hygrobac-DAR) and a heated humidifier (HH) (Fischer-Paykel MR 450) in a random order during weaning trials in SV with inspiratory pressure support. Minute ventilation VE, tidal volume), and respiratory rate were recorded and arterial blood was sampled for blood gas analysis with each device. The HME gave a significantly greater VE than the HH (9.3 +/- 0.8 L/min vs 8.1 +/- 0.8 L/min; p < 0.005), because of increased respiratory rate (21 +/- 2/min vs 19 +/- 2/min; p < 0.05). Tidal volume was unchanged for HME and HH (470 +/- 32 mL vs 458 +/- 39 mL). The higher PaCO2 with HME than with HH (44 +/- 2 mm Hg vs 42 +/- 2 mm Hg; p < 0.005) revealed an insufficient alveolar ventilation response to the increase in dead space. Arterial Po2 rose with the HME, but not significantly above the HH values (103 +/- 6 mm Hg vs 97 +/- 6 mm Hg; p = 0.055), possibly because of a positive end-expiratory pressure effect of the HME. The need to increase VE in SV when an HME is used should be taken into account during difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation. To compare the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients ventilated in intensive care by means of circuits humidified with a hygroscopic heat-and-moisture exchanger with a bacterial viral filter (HME) or hot-water humidification with a heater wire in both inspiratory and expiratory circuit limbs (DHW) or the inspiratory limb only (SHW).
                A prospective, randomized trial.
                A metropolitan teaching hospital's general intensive care unit.
                Three hundred eighty-one patients requiring a minimum period of mechanical ventilation of 48 hrs.
                Patients were randomized to humidification with use of an HME (n=190), SHW (n=94), or DHW (n=97).
                Study end points were VAP diagnosed on the basis of Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) (), HME resistance after 24 hrs of use, endotracheal tube resistance, and HME use per patient. VAP occurred with similar frequency in all groups (13%, HME; 14%, DHW; 10%, SHW; p=0.61) and was predicted only by current smoking (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.9; p=.03) and ventilation days (AOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2; p=.001); VAP was less likely for patients with an admission diagnosis of pneumonia (AOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.4-0.2; p=.04). HME resistance after 24 hrs of use measured at a gas flow of 50 L/min was 0.9 cm H2O (0.4-2.9). Endotracheal tube resistance was similar for all three groups (16-19 cm H2O min/L; p=.2), as were suction frequency, secretion thickness, and blood on suctioning (p=.32, p=.06, and p=.34, respectively). The HME use per patient per day was 1.13.
                Humidification technique does not influence either VAP incidence or secretion characteristics, but HMEs may have air-flow resistance higher than manufacturer specifications after 24 hrs of use. Hygroscopic condensor humidifiers (HCH) are reportedly capable of humidifying even the driest of ventilator source gases with at least 30 mg H2O/liter of ventilation. To assess the adequacy of the HCH during mechanical ventilation, we studied 26 patients over a 72-hour period (alternating 24-hour periods of humidification by a conventional cascade and the HCH). In these patients, we found no significant difference in static lung compliance, airway resistance, PaO2, and PaCO2 on either system. Additionally, estimates of sputum volume (over a four-hour collection period) and clearance of aerosolized 99mTc labelled DTPA (in five of these patients) also showed no significant differences between the two systems. We conclude that the HCH is capable of supplying necessary heat and moisture to most mechanically-ventilated patients for at least a period of 24 hours. The influence of heated humidification on body temperature and postoperative shivering was studied in 30 patients undergoing major intra-abdominal surgery. In the control group (I) the anaesthetic gases, administered in a non-rebreathing system, were humidified by a sponge heat and moisture exchanger. In group II the gases were humidified and heated to 37 degrees C and in group III up to 40 degrees C. Anaesthesia, surface insulation and warming of the infusions were standardized. The temperature was registered at the lower oesophagus and the big toe. Shivering and the feeling of cold were estimated at 15 min intervals postoperatively. A good correlation was found between heat gain during the first hour of recovery, the feeling of cold and intensity of shivering. Intraoperative heat loss was minimal in all groups. Heated humidification had no statistically significant effect on the body temperatures or postoperative shivering and thus provided no additional advantage compared to the control group. To determine the safety and cost-effectiveness of mechanical ventilation with an extended-use hygroscopic condenser humidifier (Duration; Nellcor Puritan-Bennett; Eden Prairie, Minn) compared with mechanical ventilation with heated-water humidification.
                Prospective randomized clinical trial.
                Medical and surgical ICUs of Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, a university-affiliated teaching hospital.
                Three hundred ten consecutive qualified patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.
                Patients requiring mechanical ventilation were randomly assigned to receive humidification with either an extended-use hygroscopic condenser humidifier (for up to the first 7 days of mechanical ventilation) or heated-water humidification.
                Occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, endotracheal tube occlusion, duration of mechanical ventilation, lengths of intensive care and hospitalization, acquired multiorgan dysfunction, and hospital mortality.
                One hundred sixty-three patients were randomly assigned to receive humidification with an extended-use hygroscopic condenser humidifier, and 147 patients were randomly assigned to receive heated-water humidification. The two groups were similar at the time of randomization with regard to demographic characteristics, ICU admission diagnoses, and severity of illness. Risk factors for the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia were also similar during the study period for both treatment groups. Ventilator-associated pneumonia was seen in 15 (9.2%) patients receiving humidification with an extended-use hygroscopic condenser humidifier and in 15 (10.2%) patients receiving heated-water humidification (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval=0.46 to 1.78; p=0.766). No statistically significant differences for hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, lengths of stay in the hospital ICU, or acquired organ system derangements were found between the two treatment groups. No episode of endotracheal tube occlusion occurred during the study period in either treatment group. The total cost of providing humidification was $2,605 for patients receiving a hygroscopic condenser humidifier compared with $5,625 for patients receiving heated-water humidification.
                Our findings suggest that the initial application of an extended-use hygroscopic condenser humidifier is a safe and more cost-effective method of providing humidification to patients requiring mechanical ventilation compared with heated-water humidification. To evaluate the effect of two commonly used heat and moisture exchangers on respiratory function and gas exchange in patients with acute respiratory failure during pressure-support ventilation.
                Prospective, randomized trial.
                Intensive care unit of a university hospital.
                Fourteen patients with moderate acute respiratory failure, receiving pressure-support ventilation.
                Patients were assigned randomly to two treatment groups, in which two different heat and moisture exchangers were used: Hygroster (DAR S.p.A., Mirandola, Italy) with higher deadspace and lower resistance (group 1, n = 7), and Hygrobac-S (DAR S.p.A.) with lower deadspace and higher resistance (group 2, n = 7). Patients were assessed at three pressure-support levels: a) baseline (10.3 +/- 2.4 cm H2O for group 1, 9.3 +/- 1.3 cm H2O for group 2); b) 5 cm H2O above baseline; and c) 5 cm H2O below baseline. Measurements obtained with the heat and moisture exchangers were compared with those values obtained using the standard heated hot water humidifier.
                At baseline pressure-support ventilation, the insertion of both heat and moisture exchangers induced in all patients a significant increase in the following parameters: minute ventilation (12.4 +/- 3.2 to 15.0 +/- 2.6 L/min for group 1, and 11.8 +/- 3.6 to 14.2 +/- 3.5 L/min for group 2); static intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (2.9 +/- 2.0 to 5.1 +/- 3.2 cm H2O for group 1, and 2.9 +/- 1.7 to 5.5 +/- 3.0 cm H2O for group 2); ventilatory drive, expressed as P41 (2.7 +/- 2.0 to 5.2 +/- 4.0 cm H2O for group 1, and 3.3 +/- 2.0 to 5.3 +/- 3.0 cm H2O for group 2); and work of breathing, expressed as either power (8.8 +/- 9.4 to 14.5 +/- 10.3 joule/ min for group 1, and 10.5 +/- 7.4 to 16.6 +/- 11.0 joule/min for group 2) or work per liter of ventilation (0.6 +/- 0.6 to 1.0 +/- 0.7 joule/L for group 1, and 0.8 +/- 0.4 to 1.1 +/- 0.5 joule/L. for group 2). These increases also occurred when pressure-support ventilation was both above and below the baseline level, although at high pressure support the increase in work of breathing with heat and moisture exchangers was less evident. Gas exchange was unaffected by heat and moisture exchangers, as minute ventilation increased to compensate for the higher deadspace produced in the circuit by the insertion of heat and moisture exchangers.
                The tested heat and moisture exchangers should be used carefully in patients with acute respiratory failure during pressure-support ventilation, since these devices substantially increase minute ventilation, ventilatory drive, and work of breathing. However, an increase in pressure-support ventilation (5 to 10 cm H2O) may compensate for the increased work of breathing. A prospective, randomized, controlled study was undertaken to compare the Pall Ultipor breathing circuit filter (PUBCF), a heat-and-moisture exchanger, and heated hot water systems (HHWSs) in ICU patients submitted to controlled mechanical ventilation. Humidification of inspired gas and bacterial contamination of breathing circuits were evaluated. During the study, there were six episodes of tracheostomy tube (TT) occlusion in six patients included in the PUBCF group. No patient out of 42 included in the HHWS group experienced this complication (p less than 0.01). There were 4 percent of days with thick and tenacious bronchial secretions in the PUBCF group and no case in the HHWS group (p less than 0.02). In the PUBCF group, 23 percent of days with hypothermia were noted as opposed to 12 percent in the HHWS group (p less than 0.01). Fewer breathing circuits were found to be contaminated in the PUBCF group (11 percent) than in the HHWS group (54 percent, p less than 0.01). In patients with an organism growing in bronchial specimens, the same organism was found to contaminate the breathing circuit in 10 percent of cases in the PUBCF group and 77 percent of cases in the HHWS (p less than 0.01). We conclude that, in the conditions of this study, the PUBCF did not provide sufficient humidification of inspired gas in ICU patients. Protection against contamination of breathing circuits was effective, but 10 percent of patients remained at risk for this complication. To evaluate the influence of airway humidification devices on the efficacy of ventilation in difficult to wean patients.
                A prospective, randomized, controlled physiologic study.
                A 22-bed medical intensive care unit in a university hospital.
                Chronic respiratory failure patients.
                Performances of a heated humidifier and a heat and moisture exchanger were evaluated on diaphragmatic muscle activity, breathing pattern, gas exchange, and respiratory comfort during weaning from mechanical ventilation by using pressure support ventilation. Eleven patients with chronic respiratory failure were submitted to four pressure support ventilation sequences by using the heated humidifier and the heat and moisture exchanger at two different levels of pressure support ventilation (7 and 15 cm H(2)O).
                Compared with the heated humidifier and regardless of the pressure support ventilation level used, the heat and moisture exchanger significantly increased all of the inspiratory effort variables (inspiratory work of breathing expressed in J/L and J/min, pressure time product, changes in esophageal pressure, and transdiaphragmatic pressure; p <.05) and dynamic intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (p <.05). Similarly, the heat and moisture exchanger produced a significant increase in Paco(2) (p <.01) responsible for severe respiratory acidosis (p <.05), which was insufficiently compensated for despite a significant increase in minute ventilation (p <.05). This resulted in respiratory discomfort for all patients with the heat and moisture exchanger (p <.01). Adverse effects were partially counterbalanced by increasing the pressure support ventilation level with the heat and moisture exchanger by >or=8 cm H(2)O.
                The type of airway humidification device used may negatively influence the mechanical efficacy of ventilation and, unless the pressure support ventilation level is considerably increased, the use of a heat and moisture exchanger should not be recommended in difficult or potentially difficult to wean patients with chronic respiratory failure.
There is little evidence of an overall difference between HMEs and HHs. However, hydrophobic HMEs may reduce the risk of pneumonia and the use of an HME may increase artificial airway occlusion in certain subgroups of patients. Therefore, HMEs may not be suitable for patients with limited respiratory reserve or prone to airway blockage. Further research is needed relating to hydrophobic versus hygroscopic HMEs and the use of HMEs in the paediatric and neonatal populations. As the design of HMEs evolves, evaluation of new generation HMEs will also need to be undertaken.