RESUMO
The aim of this study was to assess the influence of different masks, ventilator settings and body positions on the pressure exerted on the nasal bridge by the mask and subjective comfort during noninvasive ventilation (NIV). We measured the pressure over the nasal bridge in 20 healthy participants receiving NIV via four different NIV masks (three oronasal masks, one nasal mask) at three different ventilator settings and in the seated or supine position. Objective pressure measurements were obtained with an I-Scan pressure-mapping system. Subjective comfort of the mask fit was assessed with a visual analogue scale. The masks exerted mean pressures between 47.6±29â mmHg and 91.9±42.4â mmHg on the nasal bridge. In the supine position, the pressure was lower in all masks (57.1±31.9â mmHg supine, 63.9±37.3â mmHg seated; p<0.001). With oronasal masks, a change of inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) did not influence the objective pressure over the nasal bridge. Subjective discomfort was associated with higher IPAP and positively correlated with the pressure on the skin. Objective measurement of pressure on the skin during mask fitting might be helpful for mask selection. Mask fitting in the supine position should be considered in the clinical routine.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Effective non-invasive ventilation (NIV) therapy is dependent on optimal ventilator settings to maximize clinical benefit and patient tolerance. Intelligent volume-assured pressure support (iVAPS) is a hybrid mode of servoventilation, providing constant automatic adjustment of pressure support (PS) to achieve a target ventilation determined by the patient's requirements. In a randomized crossover trial, we tested the hypothesis that iVAPS, with automated selection of ventilator settings, was non-inferior to standard PS ventilation, with settings determined by an experienced health-care professional, for controlling nocturnal hypoventilation in patients naive to NIV. METHODS: Eighteen patients referred to a ventilator clinic with chronic obstructive or restrictive lung disease and newly diagnosed nocturnal hypoventilation (10 male, median (interquartile range): age 54(41-61) years, mean daytime PaO2 9.25(8.59-10.31) kPa, -PaCO2 6.38(5.93-6.65) kPa were randomized to iVAPS and standard PS. Polysomnography with transcutaneous CO2 monitoring was performed at baseline and 1 month after each treatment period. Nightly hours of therapy were recorded by the ventilator. RESULTS: iVAPS delivered a lower median PS compared with standard PS (8.3(5.6-10.4) vs 10.0(9.0-11.4) cmH2 O; P = 0.001) for the same ventilatory outcome (mean overnight: SpO2 96(95-98) vs 96(93-97)%; P = 0.13 and PtcCO2 6.5(5.8-6.8) vs 6.2(5.8-6.9); P = 0.54). There was no difference in outcome between ventilator modes for spirometry, respiratory muscle strength, sleep quality, arousals or O2 desaturation index. Adherence was greater with iVAPS (5:40(4:42-6:49) vs 4:20(2:27-6:17) hh:mm/night; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: iVAPS servoventilation with automation of ventilation settings is as effective as PS ventilation initiated by a skilled health-care professional in controlling nocturnal hypoventilation and produced better overnight adherence in patients naive to NIV.
