[The Myth about the Laryngeal Mask]. / Der Mythos um die Larynxmaske.

Peak pressures ≥ 20 mbar are not a contraindication for laryngeal masks. The oropharyngeal leak pressure of a laryngeal mask does not correspond to the pressure at which oesophagogastric air leakage occurs. Setting a peak pressure limit of 20 cm H2O on the respirator can lead to critical situations because the tidal volume may then remain too low. A good alternative is to use a pressure alarm limit. The use of laryngeal masks does not preclude the use of PEEP and/or relaxation.

Short-term effects of positive expiratory pressure mask on ventilation inhomogeneity in children with cystic fibrosis: A randomized, sham-controlled crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Can physiotherapy with a positive expiratory pressure (PEP) mask improve peripheral ventilation inhomogeneity, a typical feature of children with cystic fibrosis (cwCF)? To answer this question, we used the nitrogen multiple-breath washout (N2MBW) test to measure diffusion-convection-dependent inhomogeneity arising within the intracinar compartment (Sacin*VT). METHODS: For this randomized, sham-controlled crossover trial, two N2MBW tests were performed near the hospital discharge date: one before and the other after PEP mask therapy (1 min of breathing through a flow-dependent PEP device attached to a face mask, followed by three huffs and one cough repeated 10 times) by either a standard (10-15 cmH20) or a sham (<5 cmH20) procedure on two consecutive mornings. Deception entailed misinforming the subjects about the nature of the study; also the N2MBW operators were blinded to treatment allocation. Study outcomes were assessed with mixed-effect models. RESULTS: The study sample was 19 cwCF (ten girls), aged 11.4 (2.7) years. The adjusted Sacin*VT mean difference between the standard and the sham procedure was -0.015 (90% confidence interval [CI]: -∞ to 0.025) L-1. There was no statistically significant difference in Scond*VT and lung clearance index between the two procedures: -0.005 (95% CI: -0.019 to 0.01) L-1 and 0.49 (95% CI: -0.05 to 1.03) turnovers, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support evidence for an immediate effect of PEP mask physiotherapy on Sacin*VT with pressure range 10-15 cmH20. Measurement with the N2MBW and the crossover design were found to be time-consuming and unsuitable for a short-term study of airway clearance techniques.

Spontaneous-Breathing Trials with Pressure-Support Ventilation or a T-Piece.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous-breathing trials can be performed with the use of either pressure-support ventilation (PSV) or a T-piece. Whether PSV trials may result in a shorter time to tracheal extubation than T-piece trials, without resulting in a higher risk of reintubation, among patients who have a high risk of extubation failure is unknown. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who had a high risk of extubation failure (i.e., were >65 years of age or had an underlying chronic cardiac or respiratory disease) to undergo spontaneous-breathing trials performed with the use of either PSV (with a pressure-support level of 8 cm of water and no positive end-expiratory pressure) or a T-piece. The primary outcome was the total time without exposure to invasive ventilation (reported as the number of ventilator-free days) at day 28 after the initial spontaneous-breathing trial. Secondary outcomes included extubation within 24 hours and extubation within 7 days after the initial spontaneous-breathing trial, as well as reintubation within 7 days after extubation. RESULTS: A total of 969 patients (484 in the PSV group and 485 in the T-piece group) were included in the analysis. At day 28, the median number of ventilator-free days was 27 (interquartile range, 24 to 27) in the PSV group and 27 (interquartile range, 23 to 27) in the T-piece group (difference, 0 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to 1; P = 0.31). Extubation was performed within 24 hours in 376 patients (77.7%) in the PSV group and in 350 patients (72.2%) in the T-piece group (difference, 5.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.01 to 10.9), and extubation was performed within 7 days in 473 patients (97.7%) and 458 patients (94.4%), respectively (difference, 3.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.8 to 5.9). Reintubation was performed in 72 of 481 patients (14.9%) in the PSV group and in 65 of 477 patients (13.6%) in the T-piece group (difference, 1.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.1 to 5.8). Cardiac or respiratory arrest was a reason for reintubation in 9 patients (3 in the PSV group and 6 in the T-piece group). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who had a high risk of extubation failure, spontaneous-breathing trials performed with PSV did not result in significantly more ventilator-free days at day 28 than spontaneous-breathing trials performed with a T-piece. (Supported by the French Ministry of Health; TIP-EX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04227639.).

Early individualized positive end-expiratory pressure guided by electrical impedance tomography in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) by electrical impedance tomography (EIT) has potential interest in the optimization of ventilation distribution in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The aim of the study was to determine whether early individualized titration of PEEP with EIT improved outcomes in patients with ARDS. METHODS: A total of 117 ARDS patients receiving mechanical ventilation were randomly assigned to EIT group (n = 61, PEEP adjusted based on ventilation distribution) or control group (n = 56, low PEEP/FiO2 table). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary and exploratory outcomes were ventilator-free days, length of ICU stay, incidence of pneumothorax and barotrauma, and difference in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at day 1 (ΔD1-SOFA) and day 2 (ΔD2-SOFA) compared with baseline. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the value of PEEP between the EIT group and control group, but the combination of PEEP and FiO2 was different between groups. In the control group, a significantly positive correlation was found between the PEEP value and the corresponding FiO2 (r = 0.47, p < 0.00001) since a given matched table was used for PEEP settings. Diverse combinations of PEEP and FiO2 were found in the EIT group (r = 0.05, p = 0.68). There was no significant difference in mortality rate (21% vs. 27%, EIT vs. control, p = 0.63), ICU length of stay (13.0 (7.0, 25.0) vs 10.0 (7.0, 14.8), median (25th-75th percentile); p = 0.17), and ventilator-free days at day 28 (14.0 (2.0, 23.0) vs 19.0 (0.0, 24.0), p = 0.55) between the two groups. The incidence of new barotrauma was zero. Compared with control group, significantly lower ΔD1-SOFA and ΔD2-SOFA were found in the EIT group (p < 0.001) in a post hoc comparison. Moreover, the EIT group exhibited a significant decrease of SOFA at day 2 compared with baseline (paired t-test, difference by - 1 (- 3.5, 0), p = 0.001). However, the control group did show a similar decrease (difference by 1 (- 2, 2), p = 0.131). CONCLUSION: Our study showed a 6% absolute decrease in mortality in the EIT group: a statistically non-significant, but clinically non-negligible result. This result along with the showed improvement in organ function might justify further reserach to validate the beneficial effect of individualized EIT-guided PEEP setting on clinical outcomes of patients with ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials, NCT02361398. Registered 11 February 2015-prospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02361398 .

Devices for Administering Ventilation at Birth: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Positive pressure ventilation (PPV) is the most important intervention during neonatal resuscitation. OBJECTIVE: To compare T-piece resuscitators (TPRs), self-inflating bags (SIBs), and flow-inflating bags for newborns receiving PPV during delivery room resuscitation. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and trial registries (inception to December 2020). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, quasi-randomized, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after, and cohort studies were included without language restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. When appropriate, data were pooled by using fixed-effect models. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials (1247 patients) revealed no significant difference between TPR and SIB for in-hospital mortality (risk ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40 to 1.34). Resuscitation with a TPR resulted in a shorter duration of PPV (mean difference -19.8 seconds; 95% CI -27.7 to -12.0 seconds) and lower risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (risk ratio 0.64; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.95; number needed to treat 32). No differences in clinically relevant outcomes were found in 2 randomized controlled trials used to compare SIBs with and without positive end-expiratory pressure valves. No studies used to evaluate flow-inflating bags were found. LIMITATIONS: Certainty of evidence was very low or low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Resuscitation with a TPR compared with an SIB reduces the duration of PPV and risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. A strong recommendation cannot be made because of the low certainty of evidence. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of positive end-expiratory pressure valves when used with SIBs.

Performance characteristics of high-frequency percussive ventilation under hyperbaric conditions.

Introduction: Safe administration of critical care hyperbaric medicine requires specialized equipment and advanced training. Equipment must be tested in order to evaluate function in the hyperbaric environment. High-frequency percussive ventilation (HFPV) has been used in intensive care settings effectively, but it has never been tested in a hyperbaric chamber. Methods: Following a modified U.S. Navy testing protocol used to evaluate hyperbaric ventilators, we evaluated an HFPV transport ventilator in a multiplace hyperbaric chamber at 1.0, 1.9, and 2.8 atmospheres absolute (ATA). We used a test lung with analytical software for data collection. The ventilator uses simultaneous cyclic pressure-controlled ventilation at a pulsatile flow rate (PFR)/oscillatory continuous positive airway pressure (oCPAP) ratio of 30/10 with a high-frequency oscillation percussive rate of 500 beats per minute. Inspiratory and expiratory times were maintained at two seconds throughout each breathing cycle. Results: During manned studies, the PFR/oCPAP ratios were 26/6, 22/7, and 22.5/8 at an airway resistance of 20cm H2O/L/second and 18/9, 15.2/8.5, and 13.6/7 at an airway resistance of 50 cm/H2O/L/second at 1, 1.9, and 2.8 ATA. The resulting release volumes were 800, 547, and 513 mL at airway resistance of 20 cm H2O/L/sec and 400, 253, and 180 mL at airway resistance of 50 cm/H2O/L/sec at 1, 1.9, and 2.8 ATA. Unmanned testing showed similar changes. The mean airway pressure (MAP) remained stable throughout all test conditions; theoretically, supporting adequate lung recruitment and gas exchange. A case where HFPV was used to treat a patient for CO poisoning was presented to illustrate that HFPV worked well under HBO2 conditions and no complications occurred during HBO2 treatment. Conclusion: The HFPV transport ventilator performed adequately under hyperbaric conditions and should be considered a viable option for hyperbaric critical care. This ventilator has atypical terminology and produces unique pulmonary physiology, thus requiring specialized training prior to use.

Neonatal resuscitation: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.

BACKGROUND: Annually, 14 million newborns require stimulation to initiate breathing at birth and 6 million require bag-mask-ventilation (BMV). Many countries have invested in facility-based neonatal resuscitation equipment and training. However, there is no consistent tracking for neonatal resuscitation coverage. METHODS: The EN-BIRTH study, in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania (2017-2018), collected time-stamped data for care around birth, including neonatal resuscitation. Researchers surveyed women and extracted data from routine labour ward registers. To assess accuracy, we compared gold standard observed coverage to survey-reported and register-recorded coverage, using absolute difference, validity ratios, and individual-level validation metrics (sensitivity, specificity, percent agreement). We analysed two resuscitation numerators (stimulation, BMV) and three denominators (live births and fresh stillbirths, non-crying, non-breathing). We also examined timeliness of BMV. Qualitative data were collected from health workers and data collectors regarding barriers and enablers to routine recording of resuscitation. RESULTS: Among 22,752 observed births, 5330 (23.4%) babies did not cry and 3860 (17.0%) did not breathe in the first minute after birth. 16.2% (n = 3688) of babies were stimulated and 4.4% (n = 998) received BMV. Survey-report underestimated coverage of stimulation and BMV. Four of five labour ward registers captured resuscitation numerators. Stimulation had variable accuracy (sensitivity 7.5-40.8%, specificity 66.8-99.5%), BMV accuracy was higher (sensitivity 12.4-48.4%, specificity > 93%), with small absolute differences between observed and recorded BMV. Accuracy did not vary by denominator option. < 1% of BMV was initiated within 1 min of birth. Enablers to register recording included training and data use while barriers included register design, documentation burden, and time pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based surveys are unlikely to be useful for measuring resuscitation coverage given low validity of exit-survey report. Routine labour ward registers have potential to accurately capture BMV as the numerator. Measuring the true denominator for clinical need is complex; newborns may require BMV if breathing ineffectively or experiencing apnoea after initial drying/stimulation or subsequently at any time. Further denominator research is required to evaluate non-crying as a potential alternative in the context of respectful care. Measuring quality gaps, notably timely provision of resuscitation, is crucial for programme improvement and impact, but unlikely to be feasible in routine systems, requiring audits and special studies.

Comparison of an expiratory flow accelerator device versus positive expiratory pressure for tracheobronchial airway clearance after lung cancer lobectomy: a preliminary study.

OBJECTIVE: A new type of device has recently been introduced in chest physiotherapy as an aid to tracheo-bronchial airway clearance: expiratory flow accelerator (EFA). It promotes mucus clearance without generating any pressure gradient, allowing patients to breathe at tidal volume against no resistance. DESIGN: Pilot randomized controlled study. SETTING: Tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty adult patients who underwent lung cancer lobectomy were randomized to undergo chest physiotherapy with EFA (n=26) or PEP (n=24). INTERVENTIONS: EFA; PEP bottle. MAIN OUTCOMES: Incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) and length of stay. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: trends in inspiratory capacity, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and dyspnoea. Patients rated user-friendliness of the two devices on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: A slightly different incidence of PPCs was observed between the EFA and PEP group. Nevertheless, the length of stay was similar in the two groups. No substantial differences were seen in trends of inspiratory capacity, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, dyspnoea between the two groups. Patient-reported user-friendliness of the two devices did not differ significantly, although the use of the EFA device appeared less strenuous. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this pilot study point to the use of EFA as an alternative treatment option rather than as a replacement for the PEP bottle in chest physiotherapy following lung cancer lobectomy. EFA may be preferable for weaker patients and/or with airway leakages in whom PEP has limited indications. Further investigation in a larger sample is required to statistically confirm the findings. Clinical Trial Registration Number ChiCTR-ONC-17013255.

Face mask versus nasal prong or nasopharyngeal tube for neonatal resuscitation in the delivery room: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend positive pressure ventilation via face mask or nasal prongs at birth. Using a nasal interface may have the potential to improve outcomes for newborn infants. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether nasal prong/nasopharyngeal tube versus face mask during positive pressure ventilation of infants born <37 weeks' gestation in the delivery room reduces in-hospital mortality and morbidity. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (through PubMed), Google Scholar and EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through August 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing nasal prong/nasopharyngeal tube versus face mask during positive pressure ventilation of infants born <37 weeks' gestation in the delivery room. DATA ANALYSIS: Risk of bias was assessed using the Covidence Collaboration Tool, results were pooled into a meta-analysis using a random effects model. MAIN OUTCOME: In-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Five RCTs enrolling 873 infants were combined into a meta-analysis. There was no statistical difference in in-hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.52, p=0.92, I2=11%), rate of chest compressions in the delivery room (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.33, p=0.13, I2=28%), rate of intraventricular haemorrhage (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.70, p=0.13, I2=0%) or delivery room intubations in infants ventilated with a nasal prong/tube (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39,1.02, p=0.06, I2=52%). CONCLUSION: In infants born <37 weeks' gestation, in-hospital mortality and morbidity were similar following positive pressure ventilation during initial stabilisation with a nasal prong/tube or a face mask.

Coronavirus Disease 2019: Anesthesia Machine Circuit Pressure During Use as an Improvised Intensive Care Unit Ventilator.

BACKGROUND: Use of anesthesia machines as improvised intensive care unit (ICU) ventilators may occur in locations where waste anesthesia gas suction (WAGS) is unavailable. Anecdotal reports suggest as much as 18 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) being inadvertently applied under these circumstances, accompanied by inaccurate pressure readings by the anesthesia machine. We hypothesized that resistance within closed anesthesia gas scavenging systems (AGSS) disconnected from WAGS may inadvertently increase circuit pressures. METHODS: An anesthesia machine was connected to an anesthesia breathing circuit, a reference manometer, and a standard bag reservoir to simulate a lung. Ventilation was initiated as follows: volume control, tidal volume (TV) 500 mL, respiratory rate 12, ratio of inspiration to expiration times (I:E) 1:1.9, fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) 1.0, fresh gas flow (FGF) rate 2.0 liters per minute (LPM), and PEEP 0 cm H2O. After engaging the ventilator, PEEP and peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) were measured by the reference manometer and the anesthesia machine display simultaneously. The process was repeated using prescribed PEEP levels of 5, 10, 15, and 20 cm H2O. Measurements were repeated with the WAGS disconnected and then were performed again at FGF of 4, 6, 8, 10, and 15 LPM. This process was completed on 3 anesthesia machines: Dräger Perseus A500, Dräger Apollo, and the GE Avance CS2. Simple linear regression was used to assess differences. RESULTS: Utilizing nonparametric Bland-Altman analysis, the reference and machine manometer measurements of PIP demonstrated median differences of -0.40 cm H2O (95% limits of agreement [LOA], -1.00 to 0.55) for the Dräger Apollo, -0.40 cm H2O (95% LOA, -1.10 to 0.41) for the Dräger Perseus, and 1.70 cm H2O (95% LOA, 0.80-3.00) for the GE Avance CS2. At FGF 2 LPM and PEEP 0 cm H2O with the WAGS disconnected, the Dräger Apollo had a difference in PEEP of 0.02 cm H2O (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.04 to 0.08; P = .53); the Dräger Perseus A500, <0.0001 cm H2O (95% CI, -0.11 to 0.11; P = 1.00); and the GE Avance CS2, 8.62 cm H2O (95% CI, 8.55-8.69; P < .0001). After removing the hose connected to the AGSS and the visual indicator bag on the GE Avance CS2, the PEEP difference was 0.12 cm H2O (95% CI, 0.059-0.181; P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: Displayed airway pressure measurements are clinically accurate in the setting of disconnected WAGS. The Dräger Perseus A500 and Apollo with open scavenging systems do not deliver inadvertent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with WAGS disconnected, but the GE Avance CS2 with a closed AGSS does. This increase in airway pressure can be mitigated by the manufacturer's recommended alterations. Anesthesiologists should be aware of the potential clinically important increases in pressure that may be inadvertently delivered on some anesthesia machines, should the WAGS not be properly connected.

T-piece resuscitator or self-inflating bag during neonatal resuscitation: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: To identify the evidence for administering positive pressure ventilation (PPV) to infants at birth by either T-piece resuscitator (TPR) or self-inflating bag (SIB), and to determine whether a full systematic review (SR) is warranted. METHODS: Guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews, eligible studies included peer-reviewed human studies, prospectively or retrospectively comparing a TPR vs. SIB for administering PPV at birth. Databases searched were OVID Medline, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Review Manager software was used for the data analysis. RESULTS: Following electronic literature search and review, data from four eligible studies (3 RCT and 1 observational study), enrolling a total of 2889 patients, were included. Studies differed regarding the investigated populations, reported outcomes and came from different geographical areas. In particular for preterm infants, use of TPR for providing PPV may improve survival, result in fewer intubations at birth and decrease the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identified two new studies with substantive new evidence, pointing towards improved survival, decreased bronchopulmonary dysplasia and fewer intubations at birth, in particular among preterm infants treated with TPR. Full SR of the literature is advised. IMPACT: This scoping review identified studies comparing TPR vs. SIB for respiratory support of newborn infants previously not included in the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) recommendations. Our review found substantive new evidence highlighting that device choice may impact the outcomes of compromised newborn infants'. This scoping review stipulates the need for full SR and updated meta-analysis of studies investigating supportive equipment for stabilizing infants at birth in order to inform ILCOR treatment recommendations.

Electrical impedance tomography to titrate positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome.

RATIONALE: Patients with coronavirus disease-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) could have a specific physiological phenotype as compared with those affected by ARDS from other causes (NC-ARDS). OBJECTIVES: To describe the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on respiratory mechanics in C-ARDS patients in supine and prone position, and as compared to NC-ARDS. The primary endpoint was the best PEEP defined as the smallest sum of hyperdistension and collapse. METHODS: Seventeen patients with moderate-to-severe C-ARDS were monitored by electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and evaluated during PEEP titration in supine (n = 17) and prone (n = 14) position and compared with 13 NC-ARDS patients investigated by EIT in our department before the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: As compared with NC-ARDS, C-ARDS exhibited a higher median best PEEP (defined using EIT as the smallest sum of hyperdistension and collapse, 12 [9, 12] vs. 9 [6, 9] cmH2O, p < 0.01), more collapse at low PEEP, and less hyperdistension at high PEEP. The median value of the best PEEP was similar in C-ARDS in supine and prone position: 12 [9, 12] vs. 12 [10, 15] cmH2O, p = 0.59. The response to PEEP was also similar in C-ARDS patients with higher vs. lower respiratory system compliance. CONCLUSION: An intermediate PEEP level seems appropriate in half of our C-ARDS patients. There is no solid evidence that compliance at low PEEP could predict the response to PEEP.

ResUHUrge: A Low Cost and Fully Functional Ventilator Indicated for Application in COVID-19 Patients.

Although the cure for the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) will come in the form of pharmaceutical solutions and/or a vaccine, one of the only ways to face it at present is to guarantee the best quality of health for patients, so that they can overcome the disease on their own. Therefore, and considering that COVID-19 generally causes damage to the respiratory system (in the form of lung infection), it is essential to ensure the best pulmonary ventilation for the patient. However, depending on the severity of the disease and the health condition of the patient, the situation can become critical when the patient has respiratory distress or becomes unable to breathe on his/her own. In that case, the ventilator becomes the lifeline of the patient. This device must keep patients stable until, on their own or with the help of medications, they manage to overcome the lung infection. However, with thousands or hundreds of thousands of infected patients, no country has enough ventilators. If this situation has become critical in the Global North, it has turned disastrous in developing countries, where ventilators are even more scarce. This article shows the race against time of a multidisciplinary research team at the University of Huelva, UHU, southwest of Spain, to develop an inexpensive, multifunctional, and easy-to-manufacture ventilator, which has been named ResUHUrge. The device meets all medical requirements and is developed with open-source hardware and software.

A Randomized Trial of Laryngeal Mask Airway in Neonatal Resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Face-mask ventilation is the most common resuscitation method for birth asphyxia. Ventilation with a cuffless laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has potential advantages over face-mask ventilation during neonatal resuscitation in low-income countries, but whether the use of an LMA reduces mortality and morbidity among neonates with asphyxia is unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label, superiority trial in Uganda, we randomly assigned neonates who required positive-pressure ventilation to be treated by a midwife with an LMA or with face-mask ventilation. All the neonates had an estimated gestational age of at least 34 weeks, an estimated birth weight of at least 2000 g, or both. The primary outcome was a composite of death within 7 days or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) with moderate-to-severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy at day 1 to 5 during hospitalization. RESULTS: Complete follow-up data were available for 99.2% of the neonates. A primary outcome event occurred in 154 of 563 neonates (27.4%) in the LMA group and 144 of 591 (24.4%) in the face-mask group (adjusted relative risk, 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.26). Death within 7 days occurred in 21.7% of the neonates in the LMA group and 18.4% of those in the face-mask group (adjusted relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.63), and admission to the NICU with moderate-to-severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy at day 1 to 5 during hospitalization occurred in 11.2% and 10.1%, respectively (adjusted relative risk, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.93). Findings were materially unchanged in a sensitivity analysis in which neonates with missing data were counted as having had a primary outcome event in the LMA group and as not having had such an event in the face-mask group. The frequency of predefined intervention-related adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In neonates with asphyxia, the LMA was safe in the hands of midwives but was not superior to face-mask ventilation with respect to early neonatal death and moderate-to-severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and the Center for Intervention Science in Maternal and Child Health; NeoSupra ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03133572.).

A novel inline PEEP valve design for differential multi-ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator sharing is one option to emergently increase ventilator capacity during a crisis but has been criticized for its inability to adjust for individual patient needs. Newer ventilator sharing designs use valves and restrictors to control pressures for each patient. A key component of these designs is an inline Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) Valve but these are not readily available. Creating an inline PEEP valve by converting a standard bag-valve-mask PEEP valve is possible with the addition of a 3D printed collar. METHODS: This was a feasibility study assessing the performance and safety of a method for converting a standard PEEP valve into an inline PEEP valve. A collar was designed and printed that covers the exhaust ports of the valve and returns exhaled gases to the ventilator. RESULTS: The collar piece was simple to print and easily assembled with the standard PEEP valve. In bench testing it successfully created differential pressures in 2 simulated expiratory limbs without leaking to the atmosphere at pressures greater than 60 cm of H2O. CONCLUSION: Our novel inline PEEP valve design shows promise as an option for building a safer ventilator sharing system.

Noninvasive Ventilator Devices and Modes.

Noninvasive ventilation has become an increasingly common treatment strategy for patients with diverse conditions involving chronic respiratory failure. An intimate understanding of various advanced respiratory devices and modes is essential in the management of these patients. Pressure-limited modes of ventilation are more commonly used than volume modes for noninvasive ventilation owing to enhanced patient comfort and synchrony with the ventilator, as well as improved leak compensation. Common pressure modes include spontaneous/timed and pressure control, with volume-assured pressure support being an additive feature available on certain devices. Evidence guiding the optimal mode of ventilation for specific diseases is limited.