ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of manual resuscitators (MRs) used in Brazil in accordance with international standards. METHODS: Using a respiratory system simulator, four volunteer physiotherapists employed eight MRs (five produced in Brazil and three produced abroad), which were tested for inspiratory and expiratory resistance of the patient valve; functioning of the pressure-limiting valve; and tidal volume (VT) generated when the one-handed and two-handed techniques were used. The tests were performed and analyzed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F920-93 criteria. RESULTS: Expiratory resistance was greater than 6 cmH2O . L-1 . s-1 in only one MR. The pressure-limiting valve, a feature of five of the MRs, opened at low pressures (< 17 cmH2O), and the maximal pressure was 32.0-55.9 cmH2O. Mean VT varied greatly among the MRs tested. The mean VT values generated with the one-handed technique were lower than the 600 mL recommended by the ASTM. In the situations studied, mean VT was generally lower from the Brazilian-made MRs that had a pressure-limiting valve. CONCLUSIONS: The resistances imposed by the patient valve met the ASTM criteria in all but one of the MRs tested. The pressure-limiting valves of the Brazilian-made MRs usually opened at low pressures, providing lower VT values in the situations studied, especially when the one-handed technique was used, suggesting that both hands should be used and that the pressure-limiting valve should be closed whenever possible.
Subject(s)
Intensive Care Units , Resuscitation/instrumentation , Ventilators, Mechanical/statistics & numerical data , Brazil , Comparative Effectiveness Research/methods , Computer Simulation/standards , Female , Humans , Male , Observer Variation , Respiratory Mechanics/physiology , Tidal Volume , Ventilators, Mechanical/standardsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in a lung model simulating a mechanically ventilated patient, the efficiency and safety of the manual hyperinflation (MH) maneuver as a means of removing pulmonary secretions. METHODS: Eight respiratory therapists (RTs) were asked to use a self-inflating manual resuscitator on a lung model to perform MH as if to remove secretions, under two conditions: as routinely applied during their clinical practice; and after receiving verbal instructions based on expert recommendations. In both conditions, three clinical scenarios were simulated: normal lung function, restrictive lung disease, and obstructive lung disease. RESULTS: Before instruction, it was common for an RT to compress the resuscitator bag two times, in rapid succession. Proximal pressure (Pprox) was higher before instruction than after. However, alveolar pressure (Palv) never exceeded 42.5 cmH2O (median, 16.1; interquartile range [IQR], 11.7-24.5), despite Pprox values as high as 96.6 cmH2O (median, 36.7; IQR, 22.9-49.4). The tidal volume (VT) generated was relatively low (median, 640 mL; IQR, 505-735), and peak inspiratory flow (PIF) often exceeded peak expiratory flow (PEF), the median values being 1.37 L/s (IQR, 0.99-1.90) and 1.01 L/s (IQR, 0.55-1.28), respectively. A PIF/PEF ratio < 0.9 (which theoretically favors mucus migration toward the central airways) was achieved in only 16.7% of the maneuvers. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions tested, MH produced safe Palv levels despite high Pprox. However, the MH maneuver was often performed in a way that did not favor secretion removal (PIF exceeding PEF), even after instruction. The unfavorable PIF/ PEF ratio was attributable to overly rapid inflations and low VT.
Subject(s)
Lung/metabolism , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/therapy , Pulmonary Ventilation/physiology , Respiratory Therapy/methods , Analysis of Variance , Humans , Models, Biological , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/physiopathology , Respiratory Therapy/educationABSTRACT
OBJETIVO: Avaliar, em um modelo pulmonar simulando um paciente sob ventilação mecânica, a eficiência e a segurança da manobra de hiperinsuflação manual (HM) com o intuito de remover secreção pulmonar. MÉTODOS: Oito fisioterapeutas utilizaram um ressuscitador manual autoinflável para realizar HM com o objetivo de remover secreções, em duas condições: conforme rotineiramente aplicada durante sua prática clínica, e após receberem instruções verbais baseadas em recomendações de especialistas. Três cenários clínicos foram simulados: função pulmonar normal, doença pulmonar restritiva e doença pulmonar obstrutiva. RESULTADOS: Antes da instrução, o uso de duas compressões sequenciais do ressuscitador era comum, e a pressão proximal (Pprox) foi mais alta em relação à obtida após a instrução. Entretanto, a pressão alveolar (Palv) nunca excedeu 42,5 cmH2O (mediana, 16,1; intervalo interquartil [IQ], 11,7-24,5), mesmo com valores de Pprox de até 96,6 cmH2O (mediana, 36,7; IQ, 22,9-49,4). O volume corrente (VC) gerado foi relativamente pequeno (mediana, 640 mL; IQ, 505-735) e o pico de fluxo inspiratório (PFI) geralmente excedeu o pico de fluxo expiratório (PFE): 1,37 L/s (IQ, 0,99-1,90) e 1,01 L/s (IQ, 0,55-1,28), respectivamente. Uma relação PFI/PFE < 0,9 (que teoricamente favorece a migração do muco em direção às vias aéreas centrais) foi obtida em somente 16,7% das manobras. CONCLUSÕES: Nas condições testadas, a HM gerou valores seguros de Palv mesmo com altas Pprox. Entretanto, a HM foi comumente realizada de um modo que não favorecia a remoção de secreção (PFI excedendo PFE) mesmo após a instrução. A relação PFI/PFE desfavorável foi explicada pelas insuflações rápidas e o baixo VC.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in a lung model simulating a mechanically ventilated patient, the efficiency and safety of the manual hyperinflation (MH) maneuver as a means of removing pulmonary secretions. METHODS: Eight respiratory therapists (RTs) were asked to use a self-inflating manual resuscitator on a lung model to perform MH as if to remove secretions, under two conditions: as routinely applied during their clinical practice; and after receiving verbal instructions based on expert recommendations. In both conditions, three clinical scenarios were simulated: normal lung function, restrictive lung disease, and obstructive lung disease. RESULTS: Before instruction, it was common for an RT to compress the resuscitator bag two times, in rapid succession. Proximal pressure (Pprox) was higher before instruction than after. However, alveolar pressure (Palv) never exceeded 42.5 cmH2O (median, 16.1; interquartile range [IQR], 11.7-24.5), despite Pprox values as high as 96.6 cmH2O (median, 36.7; IQR, 22.9-49.4). The tidal volume (VT) generated was relatively low (median, 640 mL; IQR, 505-735), and peak inspiratory flow (PIF) often exceeded peak expiratory flow (PEF), the median values being 1.37 L/s (IQR, 0.99-1.90) and 1.01 L/s (IQR, 0.55-1.28), respectively. A PIF/PEF ratio < 0.9 (which theoretically favors mucus migration toward the central airways) was achieved in only 16.7% of the maneuvers. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions tested, MH produced safe Palv levels despite high Pprox. However, the MH maneuver was often performed in a way that did not favor secretion removal (PIF exceeding PEF), even after instruction. The unfavorable PIF/ PEF ratio was attributable to overly rapid inflations and low V T.
Subject(s)
Humans , Lung , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/therapy , Pulmonary Ventilation/physiology , Respiratory Therapy/methods , Analysis of Variance , Models, Biological , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/physiopathology , Respiratory Therapy/educationSubject(s)
Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Exercise Therapy/methods , Humans , Hypoxia/prevention & control , Intubation, Intratracheal , Nebulizers and Vaporizers , Pneumonia/prevention & control , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Posture , Respiratory Muscles , Respiratory Therapy/methods , Suction/methods , Trachea/metabolism , Ventilator WeaningABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: When endotracheal intubation is required during ventilatory support, the physiologic mechanisms of heating and humidifying the inspired air related to the upper airways are bypassed. The task of conditioning the air can be partially accomplished by heat-and-moisture exchangers (HMEs). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare with respect to imposed resistance, different types/models of HME: (1) dry versus saturated, (2) changing inspiratory flow rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight different HMEs were studied using a lung model system. The study was conducted initially by simulating spontaneous breathing, followed by connecting the system directly to a mechanical ventilator to provide pressure-support ventilation. RESULTS: None of the encountered values of resistance (0.5\N3.6 cm H(2)O/L/s) exceeded the limits stipulated by the previously described international standard for HMEs (International Standards Organization Draft International Standard 9360-2) (not to exceed 5.0 cm H(2)O with a flow of 1.0 L/s, even when saturated). The hygroscopic HME had less resistance than other types, independent of the precondition status (dry or saturated) or the respiratory mode. The hygroscopic HME also had a lesser increase in resistance when saturated. The resistance of the HME was little affected by increases in flow, but saturation did increase resistance in the hydrophobic and hygroscopic/hydrophobic HME to levels that could be important at some clinical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Resistance was little affected by saturation in hygroscopic models, when compared to the hydrophobic or hygroscopic/hydrophobic HME. Changes in inspiratory flow did not cause relevant alterations in resistance.
