Humidification during Invasive and Non-Invasive Ventilation: A Starting Tool Kit for Correct Setting.

The humidification process of medical gases plays a crucial role in both invasive and non-invasive ventilation, aiming to mitigate the complications arising from bronchial dryness. While passive humidification systems (HME) and active humidification systems are prevalent in routine clinical practice, there is a pressing need for further evaluation of their significance. Additionally, there is often an incomplete understanding of the operational mechanisms of these devices. The current review explores the historical evolution of gas conditioning in clinical practice, from early prototypes to contemporary active and passive humidification systems. It also discusses the physiological principles underlying humidity regulation and provides practical guidance for optimizing humidification parameters in both invasive and non-invasive ventilation modalities. The aim of this review is to elucidate the intricate interplay between temperature, humidity, and patient comfort, emphasizing the importance of individualized approaches to gas conditioning.

High-flow via a tracheostomy tube and speaking valve during weaning from mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy.

BACKGROUND: Weaning from mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy after prolonged intensive care consume enormous resources with optimal management not currently well described. Restoration of respiratory flow via the upper airway is essential and early cuff-deflation using a one-way valve (OWV) is recommended. However, extended OWV use may cause dry airways and thickened secretions which challenge the weaning process. High-flow therapy via the tracheostomy tube (HFT-T) humidifies inspired air and may be connected via an in-line OWV (HFT-T-OWV) alleviating these problems. We aim to provide clinical and experimental data on the safety of HFT-T-OWV along with a practical guide to facilitate clinical use during weaning from mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy. METHODS: Data on adverse events of HFT-T-OWV were retrieved from a quality register for patients treated at an intensive care rehabilitation center between 2019 and 2022. Benchtop experiments were performed to measure maximum pressures and pressure support generated by HFT-T-OWV at 25-60 L/min flow using two different HFT-T adapters (interfaces). In simulated airway obstruction using a standard OWV (not in-line) maximum pressures were measured with oxygen delivered via the side port at 1-3 L/min. RESULTS: Of 128 tracheostomized patients who underwent weaning attempts, 124 were treated with HFT-T-OWV. The therapy was well tolerated, and no adverse events related to the practice were detected. The main reason for not using HFT-T-OWV was partial upper airway obstruction using a OWV. Benchtop experiments demonstrated HFT-T-OWV maximum pressures <4 cmH2 O and pressure support 0-0.6 cmH2 O. In contrast, 1-3 L/min supplemental oxygen via a standard OWV caused pressures between 84 and 148 cmH2 O during simulated airway obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Current study clinical data and benchtop experiments indicate that HFT-T-OWV was well tolerated and appeared safe. Pressure support was low, but humidification may enable extended use of a OWV without dry airway mucosa and thickened secretions. Results suggest the treatment could offer advantages to standard OWV use, with or without supplementary oxygen, as well as to HFT-T without a OWV, for weaning from mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy. However, for definitive treatment recommendations, randomized clinical trials are needed.

Effect of postextubation noninvasive ventilation with active humidification vs high-flow nasal cannula on reintubation in patients at very high risk for extubation failure: a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for preventing reintubation in a heterogeneous population at high-risk for extubation failure. However, outcomes might differ in certain subgroups of patients. Thus, we aimed to determine whether NIV with active humidification is superior to HFNC in preventing reintubation in patients with ≥ 4 risk factors (very high risk for extubation failure). METHODS: Randomized controlled trial in two intensive care units in Spain (June 2020‒June 2021). Patients ready for planned extubation with ≥ 4 of the following risk factors for reintubation were included: age > 65 years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > 12 on extubation day, body mass index > 30, inadequate secretions management, difficult or prolonged weaning, ≥ 2 comorbidities, acute heart failure indicating mechanical ventilation, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, airway patency problems, prolonged mechanical ventilation, or hypercapnia on finishing the spontaneous breathing trial. Patients were randomized to undergo NIV with active humidification or HFNC for 48 h after extubation. The primary outcome was reintubation rate within 7 days after extubation. Secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure, respiratory infection, sepsis, multiorgan failure, length of stay, mortality, adverse events, and time to reintubation. RESULTS: Of 182 patients (mean age, 60 [standard deviation (SD), 15] years; 117 [64%] men), 92 received NIV and 90 HFNC. Reintubation was required in 21 (23.3%) patients receiving NIV vs 35 (38.8%) of those receiving HFNC (difference -15.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -28.3 to -1%). Hospital length of stay was lower in those patients treated with NIV (20 [12‒36.7] days vs 26.5 [15‒45] days, difference 6.5 [95%CI 0.5-21.1]). No additional differences in the other secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult critically ill patients at very high-risk for extubation failure, NIV with active humidification was superior to HFNC for preventing reintubation.

La humidificación activa en ventilación mecánica no se asocia con un aumento de complicaciones infecciosas respiratorias en un estudio cuasi-experimental pre-postintervención / Active humidification in mechanical ventilation is not associated to an increase in respiratory infectious complications in a quasi-experimental pre-post intervention study

Objetivo Existen controversias sobre la influencia del sistema de humidificación en la incidencia de infecciones respiratorias asociadas a la ventilación mecánica invasiva (VMI). Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar las diferencias en la incidencia de neumonía y traqueobronquitis asociadas a la ventilación mecánica (NAV y TAV respectivamente) con humidificación pasiva y activa. Diseño Estudio retrospectivo cuasi-experimental de tipo pre-postintervención. Ámbito UCI polivalente de 14 camas. Pacientes Se incluyeron todos los pacientes conectados a la VMI durante>48horas durante los años 2014 y 2016. Intervenciones Durante el año 2014 se empleaba humidificación pasiva con un intercambiador calor-humedad (HME) y, durante 2016, humidificación activa (HH) con calentamiento de la tubuladura inspiratoria. Se establecieron medidas idénticas para la prevención de NAV (proyecto Neumonía Zero). Variables de interés principales Se estimaron tasas de incidencia NAV y TAV por 1.000 días de VMI en ambos grupos y se valoraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas mediante regresión Poisson. Resultados Se incluyeron 287 pacientes (116 con HME y 171 con HH). La densidad de incidencia de NAV por 1.000 días de VMI fue de 5,68 en el grupo de HME y 5,80 en el grupo de HH (p=ns). La densidad de incidencia de TAV fue 3,41 y 3,26 casos por 1.000 días de VMI con HME y HH respectivamente (p=ns). Se identificó como factor de riesgo de NAV la duración de la VMI. Conclusiones En nuestro estudio la humidificación activa en pacientes ventilados durante>48horas no se asoció con un aumento de las complicaciones infecciosas respiratorias. (AU)

Objective There is controversy regarding the influence of humidification systems upon the incidence of respiratory infections associated to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). An evaluation was made of the differences in the incidence of pneumonia and tracheobronchitis associated to mechanical ventilation (VAP and VAT, respectively) with passive and active humidification. Design A retrospective pre-post quasi-experimental study was carried out. Setting A polyvalent ICU with 14 beds. Patients All patients connected to IMV for>48hours during 2014 and 2016 were included. Interventions During 2014, passive humidification with an hygroscopic heat and moisture exchanger (HME) was used, while during 2016 active humidification with a heated humidifier (HH) and an inspiratory heated wire was used. Identical measures for the prevention of VAP were established (Zero Pneumonia Project). Main outcome measures The incidence of VAP and VAT was estimated for 1000 days of IMV in both groups, and statistically significant differences were assessed using Poisson regression analysis. Results A total of 287 patients were included (116 with HME and 171 with HH). The incidence density of VAP per 1000 days of IMV was 5.68 in the HME group and 5.80 in the HH group (p=ns). The incidence density of VAT was 3.41 and 3.26 cases per 1000 days of VMI with HME and HH respectively (p=ns). The duration of IMV was identified as a risk factor for VAP. Conclusions In our population, active humidification in patients ventilated for>48hours was not associated to an increase in respiratory infectious complications. (AU)

Active humidification in mechanical ventilation is not associated to an increase in respiratory infectious complications in a quasi-experimental pre-post intervention study.

OBJECTIVE: There is controversy regarding the influence of humidification systems upon the incidence of respiratory infections associated to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). An evaluation was made of the differences in the incidence of pneumonia and tracheobronchitis associated to mechanical ventilation (VAP and VAT, respectively) with passive and active humidification. DESIGN: A retrospective pre-post quasi-experimental study was carried out. SETTING: A polyvalent ICU with 14 beds. PATIENTS: All patients connected to IMV for >48h during 2014 and 2016 were included. INTERVENTIONS: During 2014, passive humidification with an hygroscopic heat and moisture exchanger (HME) was used, while during 2016 active humidification with a heated humidifier (HH) and an inspiratory heated wire was used. Identical measures for the prevention of VAP were established (Zero Pneumonia Project). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of VAP and VAT was estimated for 1000 days of IMV in both groups, and statistically significant differences were assessed using Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients were included (116 with HME and 171 with HH). The incidence density of VAP per 1000 days of IMV was 5.68 in the HME group and 5.80 in the HH group (p=ns). The incidence density of VAT was 3.41 and 3.26 cases per 1000 days of VMI with HME and HH respectively (p=ns). The duration of IMV was identified as a risk factor for VAP. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, active humidification in patients ventilated for >48h was not associated to an increase in respiratory infectious complications.

Performance of Different Active Humidification Systems in High-Flow Oxygen Therapy.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the performance in terms of absolute humidity (AH), relative humidity (RH), and temperature of different heated humidifiers (HH) and circuits that are commonly used to deliver high-flow oxygen therapy in conventional ranges (30-60 L/min) and unconventional ranges (70-100 L/min). METHODS: In this prospective, observational study, an electronic thermohygrometer was used to obtain the required measurements. A mechanical ventilator was used as a source for high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy. For active humidification, the following equipment was used: a HH with standard disposable water trap circuit, 3 servo-controlled HH, and 7 circuits with a heated wire. Data on environmental conditions (ie, temperature, RH, AH) were collected from the laboratory during each measurement; the temperature, RH, and AH resulting from the application of 8 flows (30-100 L/min) were also recorded. Variables were compared with analysis of variance for repeated measurements with Tukey post hoc tests. A value of P < .05 was assumed to be significant. RESULTS: During the study, a statistically significant difference was found in the average AH for each flow for the different devices (P < .005). The highest AH values were recorded with the Fisher & Paykel MR850 and the Medtronic-DAR circuit (AH = 40.8 mg/L with flow of 50 L/min, P < .005), and the lowest AH values were recorded with the Flexicare FL9000 HH and the Flexicare circuit (AH = 11.4 mg/L with 100 L/min flow, P < .005). For flows > 50 L/min, the best performance for all flows in terms of AH was found with the Fisher & Paykel MR850 HH, regardless of the circuit used. CONCLUSIONS: During oxygen therapy with very high gas flows, HH devices behave differently and in many cases are inefficient in delivering adequate humidification, even at conventional flows. Caution is therefore recommended when selecting the device and flow settings for the implementation of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy.

Active humidification with Boussignac CPAP: in vitro study of a new method.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out an in vitro study of Boussignac CPAP valve performance with a new humidification method, using a heated humidifier. METHODS: Two heated humidifiers were evaluated: Fisher & Paykel MR850, and Covidien Kendall Aerodyne 2000. Baseline measurements were taken in all experimental conditions without humidification. The Boussignac valve was adapted to the input of the humidification chamber. The system was connected to a test lung to assess the degree of pressurization. Hygrometric and pressure measurements were performed with the following gas flows: 10, 20, 30 and 40 L/min. RESULTS: The mean values of pressure generated by the Boussignac valve were 1.99 ± 0.02, 6.97 ± 0.05, 16.61 ± 0.08 and 21.24 ± 0.08 cm H2O, 10, 20, 30 and 40 L/min, respectively, no differences being detected between study groups. Overall absolute humidity was significantly greater with a heated humidifier than without humidification (range 40.01 ± 0.57-25.46 ± 0.49 compared to 0.16 ± 0.13 mgH2O/L, P < .001). Absolute humidity was significantly higher in Kendall Aerodyne 2000 compared to MR850, regardless of the selected temperature and flow (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This new method of Boussignac CPAP humidification yielded humidity values above 25 mg H2O/L regardless of the heated humidifier and flow used. Pressurization values remained constant in each experimental situation and were not influenced by adding humidification. These data open up the possibility of using Boussignac CPAP on different types of patients, with different interfaces and for long periods of time.

El frasco humidificador como sistema de humidificación del gas inspirado no cumple con las recomendaciones. Evaluación y comparación de tres sistemas de humidificación. Estudio de laboratorio / The humidifier bottle as humidification system of the inspired gas does not meet with the recommendations. Evaluation and comparison of three humidification systems. Laboratory study

Objetivos. Demostrar que el frasco humidificador (FH), como sistema de humidificación del gas inspirado, no alcanza los valores mínimos de humedad relativa (HR), humedad absoluta (HA) y temperatura (Tº) recomendados por la literatura. Secundariamente, comparar el rendimiento del FH y dos sistemas activos de humidificación (SAH). Materiales y métodos. Las variables principales fueron T° del agua, HR, Tº y HA del gas entregado. Se realizaron mediciones a diferentes niveles de Tº, volumen de agua y flujos. Resultados. El FH no alcanzó los valores recomendados de HR 100%, HA 30 mg/l y Tº 31ºC. El SAH sin circuito calefaccionado alcanzó valores recomendados en el NIVEL III con flujos de 20-60lpm, y en el NIVEL II con flujos de 20-30lpm. El SAH con circuito calefaccionado logró valores sugeridos en los NIVELES II y III (20-60lpm). Se encontró diferencia significativa (p<0,001 Global) para flujo, Tº y tipo de humidificador. El modelo ANOVA arrojó significación estadística (p<0,001) del término interacción de flujo y tipo de humidificador en cada nivel de Tº. Conclusiones. El FH no acondiciona el gas de acuerdo a lo recomendado. El mejor rendimiento fue con 300 ml y flujo de 1 lpm: Tº 23,92(±0,69), HR 74,02%(±6,53) y HA 16,02 mg/l (±1,86), estos valores apenas superan el 50% de lo mínimo sugerido en la literatura. Los SAH acondicionaron el gas adecuadamente. El modelo ANOVA arroja que existen otros factores involucrados en mantener la HA y que la significación varía en cada tipo de humidificador a cada nivel de flujo(AU)

Objetive. To demonstrate that humidifier bottle (HB) as inspired gas humidification system does not attain the minimum values of relative humidity (RH), absolute humidity (AH) and temperature (Tº) as recommended by the literature. Furthermore, to compare the HB performance with two active humidification systems (AHS). Materials and Methods. Main variables were: water Tº, RH, Tº and AH of delivered gas. Measurements were made at different levels of Tº, water and flows volume. Results. Recommended values of RH 100%, AH 30 mg/l and Tº 31º C were not reached by the HB. AHS without heating circuit reached recommended values in LEVEL III with flows of 20-60 lpm, and in LEVEL II with flows of 20-30lpm. AHS with heating circuit obtained recommended values in LEVELS II and III (20-60lpm). A significant difference (p<0.001 Global) for flow, Tº and humidifier type was found. ANOVA model showed statistical evidence (p<0.001) of interaction between flow and type of humidifier in each Tº level. Conclusions. The HB does not condition gas in accordance with recommended values. The best performance was with 300ml and 1lpm flow: Tº 23.92 (±0.69), RH 74.02% (±6.53) and AH 16.02 mg/l (±1.86) and these values hardly exceed the 50% of minimum recommended by literature. AHS conditioned gas in a proper way. ANOVA model shows that there exist other factors involved to maintain AH and that there are important differences between each type of humidifier and each flow level.(AU)