4.6 Article

Carbon dioxide rebreathing during non-invasive ventilation delivered by helmet: a bench study

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 8, 页码 1454-1460

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1109-5

关键词

non-invasive ventilation; helmet; carbon dioxide; rebreathing; monitoring; physical model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To define how to monitor and limit CO2 rebreathing during helmet ventilation. Design: Physical model study. Setting: Laboratory in a university teaching hospital. Interventions: We applied pressure-control ventilation to a helmet mounted on a physical model. In series 1 we increased CO2 production (V'CO2) from 100 to 550 ml/min and compared mean inhaled CO2 (iCO(2), mean) with end-inspiratory CO2 at airway opening (eiCO(2)), end-tidal CO2 at Y-piece (yCO(2)) and mean CO2 inside the helmet (hCO(2)). In series 2 we observed, at constant V'CO2, effects on CO2 rebreathing of inspiratory pressure, respiratory mechanics, the inflation of cushions inside the helmet and the addition of a flow-by. Measurements and results: In series 1, iCO(2), mean linearly related to V'CO2. The best estimate of CO2 rebreathing was provided by hCO(2): differences between iCO(2), mean and hCO(2), yCO(2) and eiCO(2) were 0.0 +/- 0.1, 0.4 +/- 0.2 and - 1.3 +/- 0.5%. In series 2, hCO2 inversely related to the total ventilation (MVtotal) delivered to the helmet - patient unit. The increase in inspiratory pressure significantly increased MVtotal and lowered hCO(2). The low lung compliance halved the patient: helmet ventilation ratio but led to minor changes in MVtotal and hCO(2). Cushion inflation, although it decreased the helmet's internal volume by 33%, did not affect rebreathing. A 8-1/min flow-by effectively decreased hCO(2). Conclusions: During helmet ventilation, rebreathing can be assessed by measuring hCO(2) or yCO(2), but not eiCO(2). It is directly related to V'CO2, inversely related to MVtotal and can be lowered by increasing inspiratory pressure or adding a flow-by.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据