Comparison of “ADAM” and “Respironics” mask-valve system s during non-invasive ventilation in patients with stable hypercapnie respiratory faillure
Abstract
The problem of “ rebreathing” hindering effective removal of carbon dyoxide appears during non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory faillure. The aim of our investigation was to com pare two types of m ask-valve system s — “Respironics nasal mask” with the “Whisper-Swivel” valve and “ADAM circuit” internasal mask. Parameters of respiratory pattern, compliance and removal of carbon dyoxide were examined. 12 patients with stable hypercapnic chronic respiratory failure underwent non-invasive ventilation courses using two types of mask/valve system s at various regimens IPAP/EPAP with evaluation of arterial blood gases, tidal volume, “ rebreathing” volume and carbon dyoxide volume into the circuit behind the valve. Also side effects and comfort for patients were evaluated. It was shown that in spite of significant decrease in PaC02 during the non-invasive ventilation (p=0.002 for RNM mask and p<0.001 for ADAM mask) usage of ADAM mask provided stastistically significant lower level of “ rebreathing” (p<0.001) and of absolute amount of carbon dyoxide (in millilitres) into the circuit behind the valve (p=0.004). Compliance was better with ADAM m ask which was estimated by the most patients as more comfortable mask. Thus, usage of the ADAM m ask can improve the removal CO2 and ensure better co-operation between patient and doctor during non-invasive ventilation in patients with stable hypercapnic chronic respiratory failure.
About the Authors
M. A. KutsenkoRussian Federation
S. N. Avdeev
Russian Federation
A. V. Tretyakov
Russian Federation
R. A. Grigoryants
Russian Federation
A. G. Chuchalin
Russian Federation
References
1. Benson M.S., Pierson D.J. Auto-PEEP during mechanical ventilation of adults / / Respir. Care.— 1988.— Vol.33.— P.557—568.
2. Brochard L., Mancebo J., Wysocki M. Noninvasive ventilation for acute exaserbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease / / N. Engl. J. M ed.— 1995.— Vol.333.— P.817—822.
3. Elliott М., Moxham J. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation by nasal or face mask / / Principles and Practice in Mechanical Ventilation. Eds. M .J.Tobin.— New-York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.— P.427—453.
4. Ferguson G.T., Gilmartin М. C02 rebreathing during BiPAP ventilatory assistance / / Am. J. Resp. Crit. Care M ed.— 1995.— Vol.151.— P.l126—1135.
5. Fernandez R., Blanch L.P., Valles J., Baigorri F., Artigas A. Pressure support ventilation via face mask in acute respiratory failure in hypercapnie COPD patients / / Intensive Care Med.— 1993.— Vol.19.— P.456—461.
6. Iiodson M.E., Madden B.P., Steven M.H., Tsang V.T., Yacoub M.H. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation for cystic fibrosis patients — a potential bridge to transplantation / / Eur. Respir. J .— 1991.— Vol.4.— 524—527.
7. Lofaso F., Brochard L., Hang T. et al. Home versus intensive care pressure support devices: experimental and clinical comparison / / Am. J. Respir. Care Med.— 1996.— Vol. 153.— P. 1591 — 1599.
8. McCulloch. T.M., Bishop M.J. Complications of translaryngeal intubation / / Clin. Chest. Med.— 1991.— Vol.12.— P.507—521.
9. Pierson D.J. Complications associated with mechanical ventilation / / Crit. Care. Clin.— 1990.— Vol.6.— P .711—724.
10. Renston J.P., DiMarco A.F., Supinski G.S. Respiratory muscle rest using nasal BiPAP ventilation in patients with stable severe COPD / / Chest.— 1994.— V ol.105.— P.1053—1060.
11. Rossi A., Polese G., Brandi G., Conti G. Intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEPi) / / Intensive Care Med.— 1995.— Vol.21.— P.522—536.
Review
For citations:
Kutsenko M.A., Avdeev S.N., Tretyakov A.V., Grigoryants R.A., Chuchalin A.G. Comparison of “ADAM” and “Respironics” mask-valve system s during non-invasive ventilation in patients with stable hypercapnie respiratory faillure. PULMONOLOGIYA. 1998;(2):17-21. (In Russ.)