[Risk of barotrauma when using non-reinhalation Waters valves: a comparative study on bench test]. / Risque barotraumatique avec des valves de non-réinhalation de Waters: étude comparative sur banc d'essai.

OBJECTIVE: Manual ventilation is delivered in the operating room or the intensive care unit to intubated or non-intubated patients, using non-rebreathing systems such as the Waters valve. New generation Waters valves are progressively replacing the historic Waters valve. The aim of this study was to evaluate maximal pressure delivered by these 2 valves. TYPE OF STUDY: Bench test. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Thirty-two different conditions were tested, according to 2 oxygen flow rates (10 and 20L/min), without (static condition) or with manual insufflations (dynamic condition) and 4 valve expiratory opening pressures. The primary endpoint was maximal pressure measured at the exit of the valve, connected to a model lung and a bench test. RESULTS: Measured pressures were different for most evaluated conditions. Increasing oxygen flow from 10 to 20L/min increased maximal pressure for both valves. Increasing valve expiratory opening pressure induced a significant increase in maximal pressure for the new generation valve (from 4 to 61cmH2O in static conditions and from 18 to 68cmH2O in dynamic conditions). For the historic valve, maximal pressure increased significantly but remained below 15cmH2O in both static and dynamic conditions. CONCLUSION: Use of new generation Waters valves should be different from historic Waters valves. Indeed, barotrauma could be caused by badly adapted valve expiratory opening pressure settings.

Comparison of three high flow oxygen therapy delivery devices: a clinical physiological cross-over study.

AIM: High-flow-oxygen-therapy is provided by various techniques and patient interfaces, resulting in various inspired-fraction of oxygen (FiO2) and airway-pressure levels. However, tracheal measurements have never been performed. METHODS: Three oxygen-delivery-devices were evaluated: 1) standard-high-flow-oxygen-facemask with reservoir-bag, 2) Optiflow(TM)-high-flow-nasal-cannulae and 3) Boussignac(TM)-oxygen-therapy-system. Main judgment criteria were airway-pressure and FiO2 measured in the trachea. The three devices were randomly evaluated in cross-over in 10 Intensive-Care-Unit patients using three oxygen flow-rates (15, 30 and 45 L/min) and two airway-tightness conditions (open and closed mouth). Airway-pressures and FiO2 were measured by a tracheal-catheter inserted through the hole of a tracheotomy tube. Comfort was evaluated by self-reporting. Data are presented as median [25-75th]. RESULTS: 1) Regarding oxygen-delivery devices, BoussignacTM provided the highest mean tracheal pressure (13.9 [10.4-14.5] cmH20) compared to Optiflow(TM) (2 [1-2.3] cmH2O, P<0.001). BoussignacTM provided both positive inspiratory and expiratory airway-pressures, whereas Optiflow(TM) provided only positive expiratory airway-pressure. Reservoir-bag-facemask provided airway pressure close to zero. For FiO2, highest value was obtained for both Optiflow(TM) and facemask (90%) compared to Boussignac(TM) (80%), P<0.01. 2) Regarding oxygen-flow, airway-pressure and FiO2 systematically increased with oxygen-flow with the three devices except airway-pressure for the facemask. 3) Regarding the open-mouth position, mean airway-pressure decreased with Optiflow(TM) only (2 [1.2-3.3] vs. 0.6 [0.3-1] cmH2O, P<0.001). Opening the mouth had little impact on FiO2. 4) finally, discomfort-intensities were low for both Optiflow(TM) and reservoir-bag-facemask compared to Boussignac(TM), P<0.01. CONCLUSION: On one hand, Boussignac(TM) is the only device that generates a relevant positive-airway-pressure during both inspiration-and-expiration, independently of mouth-position. Optiflow(TM) provides a low positive-airway-pressure (<4 cmH2O), highly dependent of mouth-closing. The reservoir-bag-facemask provides no positive-airway-pressure. On the other hand, FiO2 are slightly but significantly higher for Optiflow(TM) and reservoir-bag-facemask than for Boussignac(TM). Discomfort was lesser for Optiflow(TM) and reservoir-bag-facemask.

The semi-seated position slightly reduces the effort to breathe during difficult weaning.

PURPOSE: The influence of posture on breathing effort in patients with difficult weaning is unknown. We hypothesized that posture could modulate the breathing effort in difficult-to-wean patients. METHODS: A prospective, crossover, physiologic study was performed in 24 intubated patients breathing with pressure support who had already failed a spontaneous breathing trial or an extubation episode. Their median duration of mechanical ventilation before measurements was 25 days. Breathing pattern, occlusion pressure (P (0.1)), intrinsic PEEP (PEEP(i)), and inspiratory muscle effort evaluated by the pressure-time product of the respiratory muscles and the work of breathing were measured during three postures: the seated position in bed (90°LD), simulating the position in a chair, the semi-seated (45°), and the supine (0°) positions consecutively applied in a random order. A comfort score was obtained in 17 cooperative patients. The influence of position on chest wall compliance was measured in another group of 11 sedated patients. RESULTS: The 45° position was associated with the lowest levels of effort (p ≤ 0.01) and occlusion pressure (p < 0.05), and tended to be more often comfortable. Respiratory effort was the lowest at 45° in 18/24 patients. PEEP(i) and PEEP(i)-related work were slightly higher in the supine position (p ≤ 0.01), whereas respiratory effort, heart rate, and P (0.1) values were increased in the seated position (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A 45° position helps to unload the respiratory muscles, moderately reduces PEEP(i), and is often considered as comfortable. The semi-seated position may help the weaning process in ventilator-dependent patients.